Commit graph

2 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
d5a3953f2e RISK-WP-0001 T01-T06,T08: the four instruments, the index, and the first grading
Severity (impact x likelihood, fidelity modifier for controls that lie,
headline-vs-constraint, build-mode double grade, the floor), disclosure
(publish/embargoed/restricted, and the build-mode deferral re-taken and
narrowed with RISK-F-0001 in hand), escalation (the five INTENT triggers
settled plus an ordering-hazard trigger the RISK-F-0002 case forced;
proposed, awaiting the custodian), review (intervals, what a review is,
what missing one produces, the production re-score).

Then applied: RISK-F-0001 critical/embargoed/escalated, RISK-F-0002
medium with a high constraint on RISK-F-0001's remediation, filed as a
peer and escalated only on the ordering, RISK-F-0003 high/embargoed/no
escalation. No unset field remains.

REGISTER.md is generated; make check reports overdue, stalled, ungraded
and unanswered escalations without changing anything.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-19 23:29:39 +02:00
97762a4be0 RISK-F-0001: flex-auth authenticates no caller on the decision surface
First finding, and it establishes the record format by being one. Kept minimal
on purpose - inventing a schema before there is a second finding to test it
against would be designing in the dark.

The substance: POST /v1/check and /v1/batch_check authenticate no caller, so
any workload with network reach can assert any subject and any tenant and
receive an authoritative allow from the estate's authorization oracle.
Self-reported by flex-auth during their Tenancy Posture review, and their own
note says they did not know they were carrying it.

Severity, disclosure and escalation are left unset. Per INTENT this repo owns
those and the reporter does not, and filling them in as the routing party would
collapse the separation on the first record.

Two things stated rather than assumed. Exposure depends on whether a
default-deny NetworkPolicy fronts the service; flex-auth did not say, and I did
not check, because that would be reporting on a system I do not own. And the
disclosure question is genuinely live here - build mode is public-by-default,
this is a live authorization bypass, and the controlled-disclosure mechanism
this repo anticipates does not exist yet, so the choice today is publish or
hold with nothing in between.

Three related defects from the same review round are recorded as visible but
not filed, since filing them was not asked for. All four were found by repos
reading their own code against a ladder within a day of each other, and none
was found by monitoring - which is itself a fact worth carrying into triage.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-17 22:51:31 +02:00