💰 European Parliament MCP Server — Financial Security Plan
🛡️ Cost-Effective Security Investment Strategy
💼 Optimizing Security ROI Through Strategic Resource Allocation
📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 1.1 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-04-21 (UTC)
🔄 Review Cycle: Annual | ⏰ Next Review: 2027-04-21
🏷️ Classification: Public (Open Source MCP Server)
This Financial Security Plan establishes a cost-effective security investment strategy for the European Parliament MCP Server. As an open-source project, the server leverages free-tier security tooling and community resources to maximize security ROI while minimizing financial burden.
The plan demonstrates how systematic security investment creates competitive advantage through comprehensive protection at minimal cost, aligning with Hack23 AB's commitment to security excellence.
— James Pether Sörling, CEO/Founder
mindmap
root(("💰 Financial<br>Security Plan"))
🆓 Free Tier Tools
GitHub Actions CI/CD
Dependabot
CodeQL Analysis
npm audit
OpenSSF Scorecard
SLSA Attestations
👨💻 Developer Time
Code Review
Security Testing
Documentation
Incident Response
Dependency Updates
📦 Infrastructure
npm Registry (free)
GitHub Repository (free)
GitHub Pages (free)
🔄 Ongoing Costs
Maintenance Time
Security Monitoring
Compliance Updates
| Category | Monthly Cost | Annual Cost | Notes |
|---|
| GitHub Actions (CI/CD) | $0 | $0 | Free tier for public repos |
| Dependabot | $0 | $0 | Included with GitHub |
| CodeQL Analysis | $0 | $0 | Free for public repos |
| npm Registry | $0 | $0 | Free for public packages |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | $0 | $0 | Free service |
| SLSA Attestations | $0 | $0 | GitHub-provided |
| FOSSA License Scanning | $0 | $0 | Free for open source |
| Developer Time | Variable | Variable | Primary cost driver |
| Category | Tools/Activities | Cost | ROI Impact |
|---|
| 🔍 Static Analysis | CodeQL, TypeScript strict mode, ESLint | $0 | 🟢 High |
| 📦 Dependency Security | Dependabot, npm audit, lockfile | $0 | 🟢 High |
| 🏗️ Supply Chain | SLSA Level 3, SBOM, attestations | $0 | 🟢 High |
| ✅ Input Validation | Zod schemas, parameter sanitization | Dev time | 🟢 High |
| 🧪 Testing | Vitest, 80%+ coverage, E2E tests | Dev time | 🟢 High |
| 📋 Documentation | Security docs, threat model, BCP | Dev time | 🟡 Medium |
| 👀 Code Review | PR reviews, branch protection | Dev time | 🟢 High |
| 📊 Monitoring | OpenSSF Scorecard, security alerts | $0 | 🟡 Medium |
graph LR
subgraph "💰 Investment (Low)"
I1[Free Security Tools]
I2[Developer Time]
I3[Documentation]
end
subgraph "🛡️ Protection (High)"
P1[Supply Chain Security]
P2[Vulnerability Detection]
P3[Build Integrity]
P4[Input Validation]
P5[Compliance Evidence]
end
subgraph "📈 Value (Maximum)"
V1[User Trust]
V2[Regulatory Compliance]
V3[Reduced Incident Cost]
V4[Community Confidence]
end
I1 --> P1 & P2 & P3
I2 --> P4 & P5
I3 --> P5
P1 & P2 & P3 & P4 & P5 --> V1 & V2 & V3 & V4
| Metric | Value | Impact |
|---|
| Cost of free security tools | $0/year | Maximum ROI |
| Vulnerabilities auto-detected | 95%+ of known CVEs | Prevents costly incidents |
| Build provenance coverage | 100% (SLSA Level 3) | Supply chain trust |
| Test coverage | 80%+ | Defect prevention |
| Time to vulnerability patch | < 7 days (high severity) | Reduced exposure window |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | 8.5+/10 | Community trust signal |
| Risk Priority | Area | Allocation | Justification |
|---|
| 🔴 Critical | Supply chain security | 30% of dev time | Highest impact attack vector |
| 🟠 High | Input validation & testing | 25% of dev time | Prevents runtime exploits |
| 🟡 Medium | Security documentation | 20% of dev time | Compliance and transparency |
| 🟡 Medium | Code review & quality | 15% of dev time | Defect prevention |
| 🟢 Low | Security monitoring | 10% of dev time | Automated detection |
| Tool | Purpose | Alternative (Paid) | Savings |
|---|
| GitHub Actions | CI/CD | Jenkins, CircleCI | $50-500/mo |
| Dependabot | Dependency updates | Snyk Pro, Mend | $100-1000/mo |
| CodeQL | Static analysis | SonarCloud Pro, Checkmarx | $200-2000/mo |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | Security posture | Custom assessment | $500-5000/assessment |
| npm audit | Vulnerability scan | Snyk, WhiteSource | $100-500/mo |
| FOSSA | License compliance | Black Duck | $500-5000/mo |
- Automate Everything: CI/CD handles security scanning automatically
- Shift Left: Catch issues in development, not production
- Community Leverage: Open source benefits from community security reviews
- Documentation as Code: Security docs maintained alongside code
- Free Tier Maximization: Use GitHub's comprehensive free offering for public repos
| Scenario | Estimated Cost | Mitigation |
|---|
| Critical vulnerability fix | 8-16 hours dev time | Automated detection, rapid response |
| Supply chain compromise | 16-40 hours dev time | SLSA, SBOM, provenance verification |
| npm package recall | 4-8 hours dev time | Automated publishing, version management |
| Security advisory creation | 2-4 hours dev time | Template-based process |
| Full security audit | 40-80 hours dev time | Continuous assessment reduces need |
| Reserve Type | Allocation | Purpose |
|---|
| Critical response | 20 hours/quarter | Zero-day and critical CVE response |
| Routine maintenance | 10 hours/month | Dependency updates, monitoring |
| Documentation updates | 5 hours/quarter | ISMS compliance maintenance |
| Dimension | Level | Financial Implication |
|---|
| 🔐 Confidentiality |  | No encryption-at-rest costs |
| 🔒 Integrity |  | SLSA attestation costs (free) |
| ⚡ Availability |  | No HA infrastructure costs |
This financial security plan is maintained as part of the Hack23 AB ISMS framework.
Licensed under Apache-2.0