--- id: RISK-F-0004 type: finding title: "agent-high-risk-boundary denies 6 of 17 high-risk lanes; the direct bao path is unprotected for the rest" status: open reported_by: ops-warden reported_via: ops-warden routed_by: ops-warden date_reported: "2026-08-20" system: railiance-platform environment: production fix_owner: railiance-platform fix_tracking: unset severity: unset disclosure: unset escalation: unset --- # RISK-F-0004 — the OpenBao half of the agent read-boundary covers a third of the lanes ## What is true `ADR-0004` (ops-warden) is enforced in two independent layers: 1. **ops-warden's CLI** — `warden access --fetch` exits 7 when `WARDEN_AGENT_ID` is set and the lane is high-risk. Verified working for all 17 high-risk lanes as of 2026-08-20 (`WARDEN-WP-0032-T05`/`T06`). 2. **OpenBao policy** `agent-high-risk-boundary` (`railiance-platform/openbao/policies/agent-high-risk-boundary.hcl`) — denies `data` read and permits `metadata` read for agent tokens. Layer 1 protects the ops-warden path. **Layer 2 is the one that protects the path an agent actually takes when it bypasses ops-warden** — a direct `bao kv get`, which is the 2026-07-16 disclosure vector. Comparing the policy's deny list against ops-warden's catalog: - **17** lanes graded `risk: high` - **5** data paths denied by the policy - **6** high-risk lanes covered (one policy path serves two lanes) - **8** high-risk lanes with a concrete KV path that the policy does **not** deny - **3** high-risk lanes with no KV path (policy not applicable) Not covered: | Lane | KV path | Newly graded 2026-08-19? | | --- | --- | --- | | `rapp-qonto-keycape-client` | `platform/workloads/rapp-qonto/keycape-client` | no — already `high` | | `agent-harness-forgejo-deploy` | `platform/workloads/agent-harness/forgejo-deploy-key` | no — already `high` | | `email-connect-transactional` | `platform/workloads/email-connect/transactional` | no — already `high` | | `scaleway-bootstrap` | `platform/workloads/railiance/scaleway/bootstrap` | no — already `high` | | `whynot-design-npm-publish` | `platform/workloads/coulomb/whynot-design/npm-publish` | yes | | `audit-core-senders` | `platform/workloads/audit-core/senders` | yes | | `ops-warden-warden-sign-token` | credential-broker grant, not a KV path | yes | | `openbao-api-key` | `platform/workloads///` — a **pattern**, not a path | yes | **Four of the eight were already graded `high` before this analysis.** The divergence is therefore pre-existing and not a consequence of the 2026-08-19 regrade; the regrade only made it visible by making the two lists comparable. ## Why it matters ops-warden's layer can be bypassed by not using ops-warden. An agent session holding a `workload-kv-read-*` policy can `bao kv get` these paths directly, and for the eight above nothing denies it. The playbook (`ops-warden/wiki/playbooks/agent-read-boundary.md`) already states that an agent token carrying `agent-high-risk-boundary` **must not** also carry the lane's `workload-kv-read-*` policy — but that is an instruction to whoever mints the token, not a mechanism. ## Exposure — stated only as far as ops-warden can support it - The comparison above is **static**, from the policy file in the `railiance-platform` checkout and ops-warden's catalog. It has **not** been confirmed against the live OpenBao. The operator token available to ops-warden is expired (`bao token lookup` → 403), so `bao policy read` and `bao token capabilities` could not be run. **The deployed policy may differ from the file.** - Whether any agent token currently carries `agent-high-risk-boundary` at all, and whether any carries it *together with* a `workload-kv-read-*` policy, is **not established**. If no agent tokens exist, exposure is theoretical. - `openbao-api-key` is a routing lane whose `path_template` is a pattern rather than an address; it is listed for completeness but probably cannot be expressed as a policy deny and should be handled by grading the concrete lanes it resolves to. - No evidence of an actual disclosure through these lanes has been sought or found. ## Suggested direction, not a prescription The two lists should be **generated from one source rather than maintained in two places** — that is what let them drift for four lanes without anyone noticing. ops-warden's catalog already carries `risk` and `path_template` per lane and could emit the deny set; railiance-platform owns whether to consume it. A check that fails when a high-risk lane has no corresponding deny would turn this from an audit into an invariant. ## Related - `RISK-F-0003` — the ops-warden-side blind spot, mitigated 2026-08-19 - ops-warden `ADR-0004`, `ADR-0007` - `ops-warden/wiki/playbooks/agent-read-boundary.md` - `railiance-platform/openbao/policies/agent-high-risk-boundary.hcl`