[mc-nv]

What does the PR do?

• Adds SECURITY.md, which this repository did not have. Flagged by an AIVO asset review.
• Uses NVIDIA's current standard template, as in NVIDIA/NeMo, cuda-python and Megatron-LM. Text is NVIDIA-authored, unmodified except the platform-neutral "GitHub/GitLab" wording from cuda-python.
• Reporting policy only: no threat model or architecture section.
• Applied across all Triton repositories.

Checklist

• PR title reflects the change and is of format <commit_type>: <Title>
• Changes are described in the pull request.
• Related issues are referenced.
• Populated github labels field
• Added test plan and verified test passes.
• Verified that the PR passes existing CI.
• Verified copyright is correct on all changed files.
• Added succinct git squash message before merging ref.
• All template sections are filled out.
• Optional: Additional screenshots for behavior/output changes with before/after.

Commit Type:

Check the conventional commit type
box here and add the label to the github PR.

• build
• ci
• docs
• feat
• fix
• perf
• refactor
• revert
• style
• test

Related PRs:

• docs: Adopt current NVIDIA SECURITY.md template server#8997

Where should the reviewer start?

• SECURITY.md — compare against NVIDIA/NeMo/SECURITY.md for the canonical wording.

Test plan:

• Documentation only; no code paths affected.

• CI Pipeline ID:

Caveats:

• NVIDIA ships two variants of the warning sentence: NVIDIA/NeMo says "through GitHub", NVIDIA/cuda-python says "through GitHub/GitLab". This PR uses the latter because Triton repositories exist on both GitHub and internal GitLab.
• The template's PGP wording is "we encourage you" rather than a hard requirement. Kept as-is for template fidelity; raised on docs: Adopt current NVIDIA SECURITY.md template server#8997.

Background

An AIVO asset review (securityportal.nvidia.com/aivo/assets) flagged Triton repositories with no SECURITY.md. Rather than authoring per-repository security documentation, every repository adopts NVIDIA's current standard template so the policy is identical everywhere and carries no repository-specific claims to maintain.

Related Issues: (use one of the action keywords Closes / Fixes / Resolves / Relates to)

• Resolves: TRI-1935

[greptile-apps]

Confidence Score: 3/5

[Low risk] Adds security reporting guidance document.

The PR does not appear safe to merge while the previously identified tenant-isolation warning remains absent.

Findings

1.   Shared cache lacks tenant isolation ▶
2.  Deployment safeguards no longer documented ▶
3.   Plaintext memory exposure omitted ▶

Summary

The PR replaces repository-specific security context with NVIDIA’s standard vulnerability-reporting template.

• It directs reports to NVIDIA’s submission form or PSIRT email.
• The replacement also removes deployment-safeguard guidance that is not present in the README.

_{Reviews (4) · Last reviewed commit: "docs: Adopt current NVIDIA SECURITY.md t..."}

[greptile-apps]

Shared cache lacks tenant isolation If mutually distrusting tenants share one cache instance and the host supplies the same key for their requests, gateway authentication does not separate their entries. The cache looks up responses using only that key, so one tenant can receive another tenant’s cached response. The security assumptions should state that tenants need separate cache instances or tenant-scoped keys. How this was verified: Lookup reads from one shared map using the caller-supplied key, with no tenant check.

[greptile-apps]

Plaintext memory exposure omitted The replacement guidance covers logs and metrics but no longer tells operators that cached responses remain readable in process memory, including after eviction. This can lead operators handling sensitive responses to overlook exposure through a memory dump or other code in the process. How this was verified: Responses occupy a plain allocated buffer, and eviction deallocates their regions without clearing the bytes.

[greptile-apps]

Deployment safeguards no longer documented If this cache is used with a network-facing Triton server, the replacement removes this repository’s only guidance that authentication, authorization, TLS, and rate limiting must be provided outside the cache. Operators relying on this documentation may miss those safeguards. If SECURITY.md must remain the standard reporting template, preserve the deployment guidance elsewhere.

Note: If this suggestion doesn't match your team's coding style, reply to this and let me know. I'll remember it for next time!