WARDEN-WP-0033 T01/T02: two under-graded lanes, and ADR-0008
secrets-engine reviewed our catalog metadata while drafting their five entries and graded issue-core-ingestion-api-key and reuse-surface-hub-write-token high. We had both as standard, and had deliberately regraded them DOWN on 2026-08-19. They are right. Both paths carry a second credential our grade never looked at -- GITEA_BACKEND_TOKEN (CCR-2026-0002, a deliberate field-set decision) and a dual-consumer webhook HMAC (CCR-2026-0005). Neither is recovered by rotating the credential the lane is named after. The defect is structural: we graded the lane by its headline field, but a read returns every field at the path. Worse, the evidence was already in the CCRs we cite as authoritative -- not missing, unread -- and a test asserted the wrong answer, so a correct first-pass grade got overruled by it. ADR-0008 records the rule: a grade covers every field its path discloses. ADR-0007 is unchanged and still governs; this says what the grade is of. Six of the remaining standard lanes have no KV path. Two have paths and no field evidence; per ADR-0008 they are stated as unknown rather than assumed, and left for operator-sanctioned grading. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
9b7e2e9bd2
commit
c357ce5908
8 changed files with 155 additions and 10 deletions
1
SCOPE.md
1
SCOPE.md
|
|
@ -155,6 +155,7 @@ superseding ADR, never an in-place edit.
|
|||
| `ADR-0005` | Implement one lane narrowly, route everything else |
|
||||
| `ADR-0006` | Enforcement is zone-scoped, never a global flag (`policy.enabled` stays off until WP-0032) |
|
||||
| `ADR-0007` | Build-stage permissiveness stops at credential disclosure; every lane carries an explicit `risk` grade |
|
||||
| `ADR-0008` | A lane's risk grade covers every field its path discloses, not just the field it is named after |
|
||||
|
||||
Rules we follow but do not own — NetKingdom canon, the IAM profile, the
|
||||
credential-management standard, the-custodian's ADR-001 workplan convention — are
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue