v0.2 recorded the approval object as the one open architectural hole, and carried a latent instance of its own §9.1 rule: gate-house was catalogued as owning conformance review with no engine to act through. Two engines were seeded to close both. - §9.4: the approval object goes to approval-engine — not Staff (§3.4 forbids the runtime state), not access-engine (an evaluator owning what it evaluates is self-dealing), not audit-core (append-only is the opposite property). access-engine consumes approvals as input claims under §6.2; audit-core takes the tamper-evident evidence. Operative state and evidence record are separate artifacts with separate owners. - §9.5: graded progression goes to maturity-engine. gate-house judges and proposes; maturity-engine computes and remembers. Carries the guardrail that a level may never gate a decision directly — under §6.1 that would be a second decision point by the graded back door. - §4 catalog gained both engines; §13 register updated. Status proposed: the new engines are seeded by owner direction with no other side to assent yet, and the approval evidence half needs audit-core's assent. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 2564823@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 2a7ed827-4928-4b9f-8613-9135c9cadfe9
402 lines
18 KiB
Markdown
402 lines
18 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
id: netkingdom-security-layer-model-v0.2
|
|
type: standard
|
|
title: "NetKingdom Security Layer Model v0.2"
|
|
domain: netkingdom
|
|
status: superseded
|
|
version: "0.2"
|
|
supersedes: canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.1.md
|
|
owner: gate-house
|
|
publication_owner: net-kingdom
|
|
created: "2026-08-28"
|
|
updated: "2026-08-28"
|
|
last_reviewed: "2026-08-28"
|
|
review_interval: 3m
|
|
source_revision: "gate-house@4f618b4"
|
|
standard_token: security-layer-model_v0.2
|
|
superseded_by: canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.3.md
|
|
assented_by:
|
|
- "flex-auth FLEX-DEC-2026-001"
|
|
- "kings-guard KG-DEC-2026-001"
|
|
- "ops-warden ADR-0010"
|
|
related:
|
|
- canon/standards/security-zones_v0.1.md
|
|
- canon/standards/tenancy-posture_v0.1.md
|
|
- canon/standards/credential-management_v0.2.md
|
|
- gate-house/decisions/decisions.md
|
|
- gate-house/history/2026-08-28-security-layer-model-and-gate-house-recut.md
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# NetKingdom Security Layer Model v0.2
|
|
|
|
> **Superseded 2026-08-28 by [v0.3](security-layer-model_v0.3.md)**, which assigns
|
|
> the approval and maturity concepts §13 recorded as unowned. The assent record in
|
|
> §14 remains the basis on which the model was accepted; v0.3 changes §4, §9, and
|
|
> §13 only.
|
|
|
|
## 1. Purpose
|
|
|
|
This standard states how NetKingdom's IT-security estate is layered, and what
|
|
each layer may and may not do. It answers one question:
|
|
|
|
> **Given a repository, which layer is it in, and what does that permit it to
|
|
> own?**
|
|
|
|
The layers are distinguished by **determinism** and by **the kind of artifact
|
|
the layer produces**, not by technical tier, deployment topology, or team.
|
|
|
|
It is not an org chart, not a network model, not a deployment topology, and not
|
|
a dependency graph. It does not assign work, and it does not replace any
|
|
repository's boundary contract; it constrains what such a contract may claim.
|
|
|
|
**What changed in v0.2.** v0.1 was assented to by all three repositories whose
|
|
boundaries moved, and each returned a finding. v0.1 had one lane for a Staff
|
|
repository that legitimately touches Tooling — read-only diagnostics — which is
|
|
narrower than the estate as it actually stands, and a rule with no lane for a
|
|
real sanctioned case is satisfied by relabelling rather than by closing the gap.
|
|
v0.1 also catalogued a capability (§4, containment) that §5 forbade discharging,
|
|
and applied its reconstructability test to engines but not to the doctrine
|
|
gate-house feeds them. §15 records the full change list.
|
|
|
|
## 2. Authority and conformance
|
|
|
|
| Fact or rule | Authority |
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
| The layers, their definitions, and the rules between them | This standard, owned by gate-house |
|
|
| Which layer a given repository is in | This standard, §4 catalog |
|
|
| What a repository owns within its layer | That repository's `INTENT.md` and boundary contract |
|
|
| Whether a specific request is permitted | `access-engine` — never this standard |
|
|
| Whether a Tooling contact is sanctioned | The declaring repository, under the shapes in §5, reviewable by gate-house |
|
|
| Security doctrine and invariants | gate-house |
|
|
| Publication | net-kingdom canon |
|
|
|
|
A repository conforms when its `INTENT.md` declares its layer, its claims fall
|
|
within that layer's permissions (§3), and its Tooling contacts take one of the
|
|
sanctioned shapes in §5 or are declared as gaps under §5.3.
|
|
|
|
## 3. The layers
|
|
|
|
| Layer | Character | Produces | Deterministic |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| **Taxonomy** | cross-cutting language | terms, semantic contracts, standards | n/a — describes |
|
|
| **Tooling** | infrastructure and state | data structures, persistence | yes |
|
|
| **Engines** | interfaces for a modeled concept | APIs, contracts | yes |
|
|
| **Staff** | management, operations, change, controlling | specifications, decisions, workplans, tasks | **no** |
|
|
|
|
### 3.1 Taxonomy
|
|
|
|
Cross-cutting language. Taxonomy repositories define terms and semantic
|
|
contracts so the other layers interoperate without integration by
|
|
interpretation. They own no runtime position and no state any layer depends on.
|
|
|
|
`info-tech-canon` holds ecosystem-wide semantic contracts. NetKingdom-specific
|
|
security architecture — including this standard — is net-kingdom canon's.
|
|
|
|
### 3.2 Tooling
|
|
|
|
Deterministic infrastructure: data structures, persistence, and the consistent,
|
|
performant, scalable keeping of state. Much of it is third-party.
|
|
|
|
### 3.3 Engines
|
|
|
|
Deterministic APIs for a modeled concept — a user, a tenant, a zone, a secret,
|
|
an access rule. An engine's defining property is that **the same authoritative
|
|
input state yields the same result**. Engines are where the estate's
|
|
deterministic guarantees live, and therefore where every enforcement boundary
|
|
MUST sit.
|
|
|
|
A repository whose core function is inference or judgment fails this test by
|
|
construction and is Staff, however much of its work happens at runtime.
|
|
|
|
### 3.4 Staff
|
|
|
|
Interactive and non-deterministic. Staff is the management layer: operations,
|
|
change, innovation, and controlling. It works through agentic capability —
|
|
assistants and autonomous agents — and its artifacts are specifications,
|
|
decisions, workplans, and tasks.
|
|
|
|
Staff repositories MUST NOT hold state that another layer depends on at
|
|
runtime, and MUST NOT render or cache any decision an Engine is responsible for.
|
|
|
|
Acting at runtime does not make a repository an Engine. Being agentic makes it
|
|
Staff, and §5 governs how it acts.
|
|
|
|
## 4. Layer catalog
|
|
|
|
| Repository | Layer | Owns |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| `info-tech-canon` | Taxonomy | ecosystem-wide semantic contracts and terminology |
|
|
| `net-kingdom` | Taxonomy | NetKingdom standards of record; publication |
|
|
| `key-cape` | Tooling | packaged identity tooling; IAM profile; authentication |
|
|
| `OpenBao` | Tooling | secret storage, leases, PKI, dynamic secret engines |
|
|
| `user-engine` | Engine | users, accounts, memberships |
|
|
| `tenant-engine` | Engine | tenant-as-an-entity facts |
|
|
| `zone-engine` | Engine | zone identity and membership — offline reference conformance per its 2026-08-23 disposition |
|
|
| `secrets-engine` | Engine | credential abstraction, custody, lifecycle |
|
|
| `access-engine` | Engine | **the policy decision** — the only decision point (§6) |
|
|
| `gate-house` | Staff | security doctrine, authority context, conformance review, curriculum |
|
|
| `ops-mason` | Staff | building and tearing down access routes and perimeters |
|
|
| `ops-warden` | Staff | operational access lanes, stewardship, runbooks; SSH certificate issuance |
|
|
| `kings-guard` | Staff | adaptive defence, observation; **containment — pending (§9.2)** |
|
|
| `whitehat-security` | Staff | offensive validation |
|
|
|
|
`access-engine` is the ruled name for the repository currently called
|
|
`flex-auth`; both denote the same authority until the governed rename completes.
|
|
Execution conditions for that rename are recorded in its migration decision, not
|
|
here.
|
|
|
|
## 5. The binding rule
|
|
|
|
> **Staff never touches Tooling directly. It acts only through Engine APIs.**
|
|
|
|
A Staff repository MUST NOT hold a direct client for a Tooling-layer system —
|
|
no direct database connection, no direct OpenBao client, no direct cluster
|
|
mutation — outside the shapes below. This is the architectural form of *no
|
|
privilege from cognition*, and it is deliberately mechanically checkable.
|
|
|
|
Three shapes are sanctioned. Everything else is a violation.
|
|
|
|
### 5.1 Read-only diagnostic observation
|
|
|
|
A Staff repository MAY read Tooling state for diagnostics where the owning
|
|
engine exposes no equivalent. It MUST be declared in the repository's
|
|
`INTENT.md`. It grants no write, and it is an engine gap to close, not a
|
|
standing arrangement.
|
|
|
|
### 5.2 Conduit
|
|
|
|
A Staff repository MAY run the **owner's** tool under the **caller's** identity,
|
|
supplying no authority of its own. The test is the supplied-authority property:
|
|
the conduit MUST NOT present its own credential, MUST NOT widen what the caller
|
|
could already do, and MUST be reconstructable as the caller's action in audit.
|
|
|
|
A conduit that presents its own token is not a conduit; it is §5.3 or a
|
|
violation. This shape MUST be declared, and the no-authority property SHOULD be
|
|
covered by a test.
|
|
|
|
### 5.3 Declared engine gap
|
|
|
|
Where a Staff repository must contact Tooling directly and no engine exposes the
|
|
capability, it MUST declare the contact rather than take an exemption. A
|
|
declared gap carries, machine-readably:
|
|
|
|
| Field | Meaning |
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
| `capability` | what the contact does |
|
|
| `intended_owner` | the engine that should own it |
|
|
| `blocked_on` | why it cannot move today |
|
|
| `review` | a date, not "when convenient" |
|
|
|
|
A declared gap is **tracked non-conformance**, not conformance. It does not
|
|
expire on its own and it is not a licence to add more. It exists because a rule
|
|
offering no lane for a real sanctioned case gets satisfied by relabelling rather
|
|
than by closing the gap — and a tracked gap is visible, whereas a relabelled one
|
|
is not.
|
|
|
|
Prior art: `ops-warden` runs equivalent machinery for delegated lanes (27
|
|
catalog entries carrying `delegation:`, queryable via `warden route gaps`), and
|
|
has offered it as reusable.
|
|
|
|
## 6. One decision point
|
|
|
|
`access-engine` is the only policy decision point in NetKingdom. No other
|
|
repository, in any layer, may render or cache authorization decisions.
|
|
|
|
First ruled in `zone-engine/INTENT.md` §5 — *"flex-auth is the policy decision
|
|
point. It stays the only one."* The failure mode, from the same source: *"It
|
|
becomes a second decision point… it would arrive as a small convenience."*
|
|
|
|
### 6.1 Compiled data that determines an outcome is still deciding
|
|
|
|
A registry, cache, or schema that resolves a result before the engine runs has
|
|
decided early. Provenance MUST remain reconstructable from the engine's decision
|
|
record.
|
|
|
|
### 6.2 Doctrine reaches the decision as an input, or it is not applied
|
|
|
|
This rule binds gate-house on the same terms. **An authority ceiling, mandate
|
|
constraint, or operating-mode restriction that determines an outcome MUST reach
|
|
the decision either as an input claim on the request or as a rule in the
|
|
versioned policy package**, so that its application is reconstructable from the
|
|
decision record.
|
|
|
|
Doctrine that influences outcomes by any other route is a second decision point
|
|
wearing an author's hat. This is not a limit on gate-house's authorship; it is
|
|
what keeps that authorship auditable at decision time.
|
|
|
|
### 6.3 No Staff repository may host a decision point
|
|
|
|
A deterministic authority boundary inside a non-deterministic layer contradicts
|
|
the invariant the estate is built on. gate-house was re-cut on this ground.
|
|
|
|
## 7. Relationship to the Active Secrets Management Canon
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Staff interactive, non-deterministic ≈ Cognitive Plane
|
|
Engines deterministic APIs ≈ Authority Plane
|
|
Tooling deterministic state ≈ Execution Plane
|
|
Taxonomy cross-cutting language
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
*Cognition proposes. Authority disposes. Infrastructure executes.* is therefore
|
|
NetKingdom's layering rule, not only its security maxim. §5 and §6 are that
|
|
principle applied to repositories rather than to requests.
|
|
|
|
## 8. Vocabulary demarcations
|
|
|
|
| Term | Belongs to | Not |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| **access lane** | ops-warden, ops-mason (Staff) — how a worker reaches a host | the decision whether they may |
|
|
| **access rule** | access-engine (Engine) — whether an actor may act | the route by which they arrive |
|
|
| **control plane** | Engine layer | a Staff repository's self-description |
|
|
| **doctrine** | gate-house | a lane owner's runbook |
|
|
| **runbook** | the Staff repository stewarding the lane | a substitute for doctrine |
|
|
| **posture** | kings-guard publishes; gate-house defines its authority meaning; access-engine renders it | a privilege source |
|
|
|
|
Posture carries an asymmetry that MUST hold: adaptive systems may reduce
|
|
authority, require step-up, or request containment. They MUST NOT
|
|
probabilistically manufacture additional authority.
|
|
|
|
## 9. Capability assignment
|
|
|
|
### 9.1 The catalog may not assign what the rules forbid discharging
|
|
|
|
A Staff repository MUST NOT be catalogued in §4 as owning a capability that
|
|
requires a Tooling contact no engine exposes. Where the capability is intended
|
|
but the engine surface does not yet exist, the catalog entry MUST be marked
|
|
**pending** and the gap declared under §5.3.
|
|
|
|
v0.1 violated this: it catalogued kings-guard as owning containment while §5
|
|
forbade the only route to discharging it, making the capability zero rather than
|
|
degraded. Raised by kings-guard, KG-DEC-2026-001.
|
|
|
|
### 9.2 Containment is pending an engine surface
|
|
|
|
No engine exposes a containment surface today — nothing to reduce authority,
|
|
require step-up, or isolate a workload as a deterministic API. kings-guard's
|
|
containment claim is marked pending in §4 until one exists.
|
|
|
|
### 9.3 Degraded-mode fallback belongs inside the engine
|
|
|
|
Where a capability must survive partial failure, the fallback belongs to the
|
|
engine, not to Staff. The deterministic *fail to reduced authority* default is
|
|
`access-engine`'s, applied when it cannot reach its own inputs.
|
|
|
|
This keeps the decision at the decision point and keeps the fallback
|
|
deterministic — which a Staff-layer fallback could never be. It is also why
|
|
engine-unavailable is not grounds for a Staff break-glass path: an incident is
|
|
when an attacker most wants the shortcut, and a containment path that bypasses
|
|
the decision point becomes an authority path the moment it is subverted.
|
|
|
|
## 10. Changing layer
|
|
|
|
A repository's layer is not permanent. `zone-engine` changed layer in practice
|
|
when its runtime hypothesis was falsified.
|
|
|
|
A layer change MUST be recorded as a decision, MUST update the repository's
|
|
`INTENT.md`, and MUST obtain assent from the repositories whose boundaries move.
|
|
A repository MUST NOT acquire a new layer's permissions by gradual practice.
|
|
|
|
## 11. Conformance
|
|
|
|
Conformance has three states, and the distinction is the point:
|
|
|
|
| State | Meaning |
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
| **Conforming** | no Tooling contact, or only §5.1/§5.2 shapes, declared |
|
|
| **Declared gap** | a §5.3 contact with owner, blocker, and review date — tracked non-conformance |
|
|
| **Undeclared violation** | anything else — a finding |
|
|
|
|
Mechanically checkable:
|
|
|
|
- every repository in §4 declares its layer in `INTENT.md`;
|
|
- every direct Tooling client in a Staff repository maps to a declared §5.1,
|
|
§5.2, or §5.3 entry;
|
|
- no repository other than `access-engine` exposes an authorization decision
|
|
surface;
|
|
- no §4 capability is catalogued without an engine surface or a pending mark.
|
|
|
|
Requires review: whether claims stay inside layer permissions; whether compiled
|
|
or cached data has become an early decision (§6.1); whether doctrine is reaching
|
|
decisions as declared inputs (§6.2); whether the §8 vocabulary is used correctly.
|
|
|
|
## 12. The conformance loop
|
|
|
|
Doctrine no engine implements is fiction. The loop is normative, not
|
|
aspirational:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
gate-house asserts an invariant
|
|
→ the engines implement it, or declare a gap
|
|
→ whitehat-security tries to break it
|
|
→ kings-guard observes it in operation
|
|
→ findings return to gate-house as doctrine change
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
A finding that a rule is unsatisfiable is a **success** of this loop, not a
|
|
failure of the reporting repository. v0.2 exists because three repositories used
|
|
it on first contact.
|
|
|
|
## 13. Open gaps
|
|
|
|
Declared under §5.3 or raised as unowned capability, as of 2026-08-28:
|
|
|
|
| Gap | Declared by | Intended owner |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| SSH-CA signing write (`VaultCA`, `bao kv put`) | ops-warden | secrets-engine |
|
|
| Authentication / assurance evidence | kings-guard | user-engine, access-engine |
|
|
| Secret-use evidence | kings-guard | secrets-engine |
|
|
| Containment surface | kings-guard | access-engine + runtime engines |
|
|
| Registry-snapshot digest in decision provenance | flex-auth | flex-auth (self-declared) |
|
|
| **Approval storage and lifecycle** — durable object, authenticated entries, atomic supersession | flex-auth | **unowned — see below** |
|
|
|
|
The approval gap is the one open architectural hole. It is not gate-house's
|
|
(§3.4 forbids Staff holding state another layer depends on at runtime) and not
|
|
access-engine's (it does not own the organizational approval lifecycle). It
|
|
blocks `FLEX-WP-0017` T03 and T05. Assigning it requires a decision and the
|
|
assent of the receiving repository; this standard records the gap and does not
|
|
assign it.
|
|
|
|
## 14. Adoption
|
|
|
|
Status is **accepted**. All three repositories whose boundaries moved have
|
|
assented in writing, each with a decision record:
|
|
|
|
| Repository | Record | Outcome |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| flex-auth | `FLEX-DEC-2026-001` | assent to all three items; one self-declared non-conformance; two rename conditions |
|
|
| kings-guard | `KG-DEC-2026-001` | assent; declined the offered §5 relaxation; raised §9.1 |
|
|
| ops-warden | `ADR-0010` | assent to all three; veto not exercised; offered the §5.3 amendment |
|
|
|
|
Adoption for a repository means its `INTENT.md` declares its layer, its
|
|
ownership claims fall inside that layer, its Tooling contacts are declared under
|
|
§5, and any shared boundary has been assented to by the other side.
|
|
|
|
## 15. Change log
|
|
|
|
v0.1 → v0.2:
|
|
|
|
1. **§5 restructured** into three sanctioned shapes. Added §5.2 conduit
|
|
(ops-warden's question, ruled) and §5.3 declared engine gap (ops-warden's
|
|
amendment, accepted).
|
|
2. **§6.2 added** — doctrine must reach the decision as an input claim or a
|
|
versioned policy rule (flex-auth's boundary drawn back, accepted).
|
|
3. **§9 added** — the catalog may not assign a capability the rules forbid
|
|
discharging; containment marked pending; degraded-mode fallback ruled into
|
|
the engine (kings-guard's finding).
|
|
4. **§11 restructured** — conformance now has three states, distinguishing a
|
|
tracked gap from an undeclared violation.
|
|
5. **§12 made normative**, with the explicit statement that an
|
|
unsatisfiability finding is a success of the loop.
|
|
6. **§13 added** — open gaps register, including the unowned approval storage
|
|
and lifecycle capability.
|
|
7. §4 catalog gained the pending mark and ops-warden's SSH certificate lane.
|
|
|
|
## 16. Open questions
|
|
|
|
- Who owns approval storage and lifecycle (§13). The only structural hole.
|
|
- Whether Tooling warrants subdivision between third-party and homegrown.
|
|
- How a future `role-engine` divides responsibility with `access-engine`.
|
|
- Whether declared gaps need an estate-wide register rather than per-repository
|
|
declarations; ops-warden's `warden route gaps` is candidate machinery.
|
|
- Whether non-security repositories adopt the same model.
|