flex-auth/examples/secrets-engine/policy_package.md

---
id: secrets-engine.catalog-lane.lifecycle
name: secrets-engine catalog-lane lifecycle authorization
namespace: secrets-engine:secret-catalog-lane
version: v1
status: ready
package: flexauth.secrets_engine.catalog_lane
allow_ttl: 15m
actions:
  - apply
  - provision
  - rotate
  - verify
  - handoff
  - wrap
  - exec
  - deactivate
  - suspend
  - destroy
  - compromise
  - reactivate
owner: team:platform-security
fixtures:
  - policy_fixtures.yaml
caring:
  profile: caring-0.4.0-rc2
  enforce: false
  canonical_roles:
    - Operator
  organization_relations:
    - ServiceProvider
  scopes:
    - level: Platform
      id: platform:secrets-engine
      tenant: tenant:platform
  planes:
    - Secret
    - Policy
    - Audit
  capabilities:
    - Create
    - EditAny
    - Execute
    - Archive
    - Restore
    - View
    - Audit
  exposure_modes:
    - Metadata
  conditions:
    - DualApprovalRequired
  restrictions:
    - PrivilegeEscalationBlocked
activation:
  mode: local
metadata:
  source: examples/secrets-engine/policy_package.md
  flex_auth_contract: protected-system-v0
  action_vocabulary: docs/secrets-engine-action-vocabulary.md
---

# secrets-engine catalog-lane lifecycle authorization

This package authorizes `secrets-engine`'s gated CLI operations over a secret
catalog lane. `secrets-engine` keeps custody of the secret material, the
OpenBao objects, and the local delivery overlay; flex-auth decides whether a
specific lifecycle operation is allowed now.

Opened by `FLEX-DEC-2026-005` and carried by `FLEX-WP-0021`.

## The vocabulary is theirs, not ours

The twelve action values below were **delivered by secrets-engine**
(`FLEX-WP-0021-T01`, their `docs/gated-actions.md`), read out of `cli.py`
rather than derived from the `secrets-engine.lifecycle/v1` example vocabulary
that this package replaces. `FLEX-WP-0021-T01` made an inferred action a
blocker rather than a default, and four of the twelve would have been inferred
wrongly. They are recorded in
[`../../docs/secrets-engine-action-vocabulary.md`](../../docs/secrets-engine-action-vocabulary.md).

The four that an inferred list would have gotten wrong are encoded here, not
assumed — see "The four traps" below.

## Correction, 2026-09-06 — the dual-control rule was written against an invented shape

The first published version of this rule required `context.approval.status ==
"approved"` and counted `context.approval.approvals[].subject_id`. **Neither
field exists.** The claim's field is `state` (whose `approved` is not the
operative value — `valid` is), and it carries no approver list at all. That rule
was unsatisfiable: every live `destroy` would have denied `dual_control_required`
no matter how good the approval was.

It failed closed, so it was never a hole. It was, however, a policy written
against an invented shape rather than a published one — the same class of error
`approval-engine` had flagged one message earlier, committed while flagging it.
Recorded here rather than quietly rewritten. The rule now consumes
`valid_now` from the published claim; see "Dual control on `destroy`".

## The four traps

1. **`revoke` is not an action.** The CLI verb `revoke` gates as `deactivate`,
   which is also reached from `lifecycle deactivate`. There is no `revoke`
   value and one must not be added — `test_revoke_is_not_an_action` asserts it
   denies `unknown_action`.
2. **`destroy` is defined but not reachable live.** Its handler raises before
   the gate, so only `--dry-run` renders today. It stays in the vocabulary as
   the dual-control case; no live `destroy` Check arrives until
   `SECRETS-WP-0007-T04` lands.
3. **`compromise` and `reactivate` touch no OpenBao object.** They mutate local
   overlay state only. They are gated because they change delivery posture, not
   because they write to the backend.
4. **Seven CLI surfaces never reach the gate** and must not appear here:
   `plan`, `apply --dry-run`, `route`, `audit`, `catalog`, `decision inspect`,
   and `evidence`. `test_ungated_surfaces_are_not_actions` asserts they deny.

On the fourth: `apply` *is* an action and `apply --dry-run` is not, but that
distinction is invisible to flex-auth — both would arrive as `apply`. The PEP
does not call the gate for a dry run, and that is the only thing keeping them
apart. flex-auth cannot enforce it and does not pretend to.

## Request shape

`resource.type` is `secret-catalog-lane`, `resource.system` is
`secrets-engine`, and the catalog id is `resource.id`
(`FLEX-DEC-2026-005`; secrets-engine implemented this in their commit
`627810b`). `resource.attributes` carries `stage` plus sorted `fields`,
`policy_targets`, and `auth_targets`. `fields` is populated for `provision`,
`rotate`, `verify`, and `exec`; the rest send an empty list rather than a
guess.

## Allow lifetime

`allow_ttl: 15m`, stated explicitly rather than inherited from the engine
default. These decisions authorize live secret operations, so the window in
which one may be relied on is a property worth writing down in the package
where a reviewer sees it, not one to leave implicit.

Per `FLEX-DEC-2026-004`, that lifetime is authority to *issue* the operation,
not authority to keep using anything the operation produced. A wrapped or
delivered secret's own lifetime is secrets-engine's to bound.

## Dual control on `destroy`

`destroy` is the one action that requires more than a known caller. It requires
an **approval-claim** on `context.approval`, issued by `approval-engine`, whose
`valid_now` is `true`.

That is the whole check, and the shape is
`approval-engine/schemas/approval_claim.schema.json` — not a shape of
flex-auth's devising. `valid_now` is a summary predicate: true only when the
object is approved, inside its validity window, and not consumed, superseded,
revoked, or expired. **The distinct-approver threshold is folded into it**, and
`reason_code: insufficient_approvers` is how a claim that failed the threshold
comes back.

flex-auth consumes the claim as an input claim and **never mutates it**
(`security-layer-model_v0.7` §9.4). Per `FLEX-DEC-2026-006` the approval fact is
`approval-engine`'s step-1 artifact and this decision is step 2; the PEP
validates across both.

### What this package deliberately does not do

- **It does not count approvers.** The claim carries no approver list, and
  re-deriving the threshold here is exactly the duplication the step-1/step-2
  split removes (`GH-DEC-2026-005`). The compensating property is
  reconstructability at the issuer under §9.6 — detection, not prevention —
  and it is `approval-engine`'s, not ours.
- **It does not re-derive validity, freshness, signature, or supersession.**
  Those are `approval-engine`'s to assert and the PEP's to verify against the
  live claim. A PDP re-deriving them from a caller-supplied blob would be
  inventing an authority it does not have.
- **It does not compare `binding.pdp_digest`.** That comparison is the whole
  binding mapping (see below), but the request digest is computed by the engine
  *after* policy evaluation, so a Rego rule cannot see it. It belongs in the PEP,
  which must require the value non-null and equal.

### The binding mapping: `pdp_digest` is the answer, and there will be no table

**Closed 2026-09-06.** flex-auth asked `approval-engine` whether a published
action/target mapping was worth having, and offered to co-author it. They
declined, and were right to:

- The claim's `binding.action` and `binding.target` use `approval-engine`'s
  vocabulary (`secrets.kv.destroy`, `{"id": ..., "stage": ...}`); this package's
  use ours (`destroy`, `lane:...`). A PIP asserting that one **means** the other
  would be authoring policy semantics over two vocabularies it does not own —
  the same layer boundary flex-auth invoked against its own composed object in
  `FLEX-DEC-2026-006`.
- The failure is asymmetric. A wrong mapping silently accepts a claim approved
  for a *different* action, which is strictly worse than no mapping.

`binding.pdp_digest` is the mapping, and it is stronger than a name table
because it does not translate at all:

```text
claim.binding.pdp_digest == decision.binding.request_digest
```

That compares the PDP's own digest to the PDP's own digest, in one vocabulary,
with nobody asserting equivalence between two.

**`pdp_digest` is now always present and may be null** (`approval-engine`
commit `6d0dfc8`), so its absence is a stated fact rather than a missing key. A
null means the approval was not issued against a PDP decision — it proves an
approval exists, not that it was issued against the request being decided, and
no vocabulary comparison recovers that.

**The gate for `destroy` is therefore: `pdp_digest` non-null and equal.** That
check is the PEP's, not this package's, for the reason given above — the
request digest is computed after policy evaluation and a Rego rule cannot see
it. `secrets-engine` must refuse a null-`pdp_digest` claim on this lane before
`SECRETS-WP-0007-T04` makes `destroy` reachable.

### Decision: one subject, so no `action_not_granted` branch

**Decision (`FLEX-WP-0021-T02`, 2026-09-06): the denial ladder stops at
`unknown_subject` plus `dual_control_required`.**

secrets-engine named exactly one calling identity. With one subject holding all
twelve actions, an `action_not_granted` branch could never fire. Following the
precedent set in `tenant-engine.write-api.mutate` (`FLEX-WP-0010-T02`), a rule
that cannot fail is worse than no rule: it reads to a later reviewer as though
per-action grants were separately controlled when they are not.

`dual_control_required` is a real branch — it fires whenever `destroy` arrives
without a satisfying claim, and the fixtures exercise both sides.

**Revisit when** a second calling identity is registered against
`system: "secrets-engine"`, or when secrets-engine splits its CLI identity by
lane or stage. Adding the branch then is additive to this package: no consumer
change and no request-shape change.

## Rules

```rego
import future.keywords.contains
import future.keywords.if
import future.keywords.in

valid_actions := {
  "apply",
  "provision",
  "rotate",
  "verify",
  "handoff",
  "wrap",
  "exec",
  "deactivate",
  "suspend",
  "destroy",
  "compromise",
  "reactivate",
}

dual_control_actions := {"destroy"}

known_subjects := {"secrets-engine"}

decision := {"effect": "allow", "reason": "catalog_lane_policy_matched"} if {
  allowed
} else := {"effect": "deny", "reason": first_denial} if {
  true
}

well_formed if {
  input.resource.system == "secrets-engine"
  input.resource.type == "secret-catalog-lane"
  input.action in valid_actions
  input.subject.type == "service"
  input.subject.id in known_subjects
}

allowed if {
  well_formed
  not input.action in dual_control_actions
}

allowed if {
  well_formed
  input.action in dual_control_actions
  dual_control_satisfied
}

dual_control_satisfied if {
  claim := input.context.approval
  claim.kind == "approval-claim"
  claim.issuer == "approval-engine"
  claim.valid_now == true
}

default first_denial := "no_matching_rule"

first_denial := "wrong_system" if {
  input.resource.system != "secrets-engine"
} else := "wrong_resource_type" if {
  input.resource.type != "secret-catalog-lane"
} else := "unknown_action" if {
  not input.action in valid_actions
} else := "wrong_subject_type" if {
  input.subject.type != "service"
} else := "unknown_subject" if {
  not input.subject.id in known_subjects
} else := "dual_control_required" if {
  input.action in dual_control_actions
}
```

## Tests

```rego test
package flexauth.secrets_engine.catalog_lane_test

import future.keywords.every
import future.keywords.if
import future.keywords.in
import data.flexauth.secrets_engine.catalog_lane

lane(action) := {
  "id": "check:secrets-engine",
  "tenant": "tenant:platform",
  "subject": {"id": "secrets-engine", "type": "service"},
  "action": action,
  "resource": {
    "id": "lane:glas-primary",
    "type": "secret-catalog-lane",
    "system": "secrets-engine",
    "attributes": {"stage": "prod", "fields": [], "policy_targets": [], "auth_targets": []}
  },
  "context": {}
}

# A complete approval-claim, matching every required field of
# approval-engine/schemas/approval_claim.schema.json. Partial claims in a
# fixture are how a consumer learns the wrong shape.
valid_claim := {
  "schema_version": "0.1",
  "kind": "approval-claim",
  "issuer": "approval-engine",
  "approval_id": "3d1c0a8e-6b7f-4c21-9a0e-1f2b3c4d5e6f",
  "state": "valid",
  "valid_now": true,
  "consumed": false,
  "binding": {
    "action": "secrets.kv.destroy",
    "target": {"id": "lane-openbao-root", "stage": "prod"},
    "actor": "agt-secrets-engine",
    "principal": "bernd",
    "purpose": "rotate-exposed-key",
    "digest": "sha256:3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f",
    "pdp_digest": "sha256:fa07becfaa471394d06aee5fa3cd66352bf0cc69ef24900240489684cda8cd56",
    "pdp_path": true
  },
  "freshness": {
    "observed_at": "2026-09-06T12:00:00+00:00",
    "ttl_seconds": 30,
    "not_after": "2026-09-06T12:00:30+00:00"
  },
  "validity": {
    "not_before": "2026-09-06T11:00:00+00:00",
    "expires_at": "2026-09-06T15:00:00+00:00"
  },
  "reason_code": "ok"
}

destroy_with(claim) := object.union(lane("destroy"), {"context": {"approval": claim}})

approved_destroy := destroy_with(valid_claim)

test_apply_allowed if {
  catalog_lane.decision.effect == "allow" with input as lane("apply")
}

test_provision_allowed if {
  catalog_lane.decision.effect == "allow" with input as lane("provision")
}

test_rotate_allowed if {
  catalog_lane.decision.effect == "allow" with input as lane("rotate")
}

test_verify_allowed if {
  catalog_lane.decision.effect == "allow" with input as lane("verify")
}

test_handoff_allowed if {
  catalog_lane.decision.effect == "allow" with input as lane("handoff")
}

test_wrap_allowed if {
  catalog_lane.decision.effect == "allow" with input as lane("wrap")
}

test_exec_allowed if {
  catalog_lane.decision.effect == "allow" with input as lane("exec")
}

test_deactivate_allowed if {
  catalog_lane.decision.effect == "allow" with input as lane("deactivate")
}

test_suspend_allowed if {
  catalog_lane.decision.effect == "allow" with input as lane("suspend")
}

test_compromise_allowed if {
  catalog_lane.decision.effect == "allow" with input as lane("compromise")
}

test_reactivate_allowed if {
  catalog_lane.decision.effect == "allow" with input as lane("reactivate")
}

test_destroy_with_dual_control_allowed if {
  catalog_lane.decision.effect == "allow" with input as approved_destroy
}

test_destroy_without_claim_denied if {
  catalog_lane.decision.reason == "dual_control_required" with input as lane("destroy")
}

test_destroy_insufficient_approvers_denied if {
  catalog_lane.decision.reason == "dual_control_required" with input as destroy_with(
    object.union(valid_claim, {"state": "requested", "valid_now": false, "reason_code": "insufficient_approvers"})
  )
}

test_destroy_consumed_claim_denied if {
  catalog_lane.decision.reason == "dual_control_required" with input as destroy_with(
    object.union(valid_claim, {"state": "consumed", "valid_now": false, "consumed": true, "reason_code": "consumed"})
  )
}

test_destroy_revoked_claim_denied if {
  catalog_lane.decision.reason == "dual_control_required" with input as destroy_with(
    object.union(valid_claim, {"state": "revoked", "valid_now": false, "reason_code": "revoked"})
  )
}

test_destroy_approved_but_not_valid_now_denied if {
  catalog_lane.decision.reason == "dual_control_required" with input as destroy_with(
    object.union(valid_claim, {"state": "approved", "valid_now": false, "reason_code": "not_yet_valid"})
  )
}

test_destroy_foreign_issuer_denied if {
  catalog_lane.decision.reason == "dual_control_required" with input as destroy_with(
    object.union(valid_claim, {"issuer": "some-other-engine"})
  )
}

test_destroy_wrong_kind_denied if {
  catalog_lane.decision.reason == "dual_control_required" with input as destroy_with(
    object.union(valid_claim, {"kind": "action-authorization"})
  )
}

test_revoke_is_not_an_action if {
  catalog_lane.decision.reason == "unknown_action" with input as lane("revoke")
}

test_ungated_surfaces_are_not_actions if {
  every surface in ["plan", "route", "audit", "catalog", "decision", "evidence", "inspect"] {
    catalog_lane.decision.reason == "unknown_action" with input as lane(surface)
  }
}

test_unknown_subject_denied if {
  catalog_lane.decision.reason == "unknown_subject" with input as object.union(
    lane("rotate"),
    {"subject": {"id": "some-other-service", "type": "service"}}
  )
}

test_wrong_subject_type_denied if {
  catalog_lane.decision.reason == "wrong_subject_type" with input as object.union(
    lane("rotate"),
    {"subject": {"id": "secrets-engine", "type": "human"}}
  )
}

test_wrong_system_denied if {
  catalog_lane.decision.reason == "wrong_system" with input as object.union(
    lane("rotate"),
    {"resource": {"id": "lane:glas-primary", "type": "secret-catalog-lane", "system": "some-other-system"}}
  )
}

test_wrong_resource_type_denied if {
  catalog_lane.decision.reason == "wrong_resource_type" with input as object.union(
    lane("rotate"),
    {"resource": {"id": "lane:glas-primary", "type": "secret", "system": "secrets-engine"}}
  )
}
```