docs: Add SECURITY.md

[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: 5/5

[Low risk] Adds security reporting guidance document.

The PR appears safe to merge.

Findings

1.   Client requests appear trusted ▶

Summary

Adds NVIDIA’s standard security-reporting policy to this repository.

• Directs vulnerability reports to NVIDIA’s submission form or PSIRT email.
• Removes the draft’s repository-specific architecture and threat-model sections.

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

[greptile-apps]

Client requests appear trusted The assumption that “other inputs come from trusted sources” can be read to include inference requests, even though those requests originate with server clients and the threat model says they may be malicious. Backend authors relying on this assumption could skip validation of client-controlled data. Distinguish trusted model files and configuration from requests that must be treated as untrusted. How this was verified: Backend request inputs are read from per-client request objects, while the policy describes requests as potentially malicious.

Knowledge Base Used: Backend API and lifecycle

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!