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 a security policy document.

The PR appears safe to merge, with a non-blocking checkpoint-provenance warning still outstanding from the previous review.

Findings

1.   Checkpoint loading warning removed ▶

Summary

Replaces the earlier repository-specific security guidance with NVIDIA’s standard vulnerability-reporting policy.

• Directs reporters to NVIDIA’s submission form or PSIRT email rather than GitHub/GitLab.
• Removes the architecture, threat-model, and deployment-assumption sections.

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

[greptile-apps]

Checkpoint loading warning removed The revised threat model no longer explains that loading an untrusted model checkpoint can execute code. The Part 1 and Part 5 tutorials download a .pth file from Dropbox and load it with torch.load, but their guides do not warn about this risk. The generic tampering warning may leave readers unaware that they should verify the checkpoint’s provenance before running the export step. How this was verified: The tutorial download commands feed an external checkpoint to torch.load, and the revised policy omits the prior load-time execution warning.