risk-nexus/findings/RISK-F-0009-openbao-deny-set-covers-a-third-of-high-risk-lanes.md

---
id: RISK-F-0009
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
filed_as: "RISK-F-0004 by ops-warden; renumbered by risk-nexus 2026-08-20 (id collision)"
answers: RISK-F-0003
related: [RISK-F-0003]
# Graded by risk-nexus 2026-08-20 — docs/rulings/2026-08-20-openbao-layer.md
severity: high
severity_at_production: high
impact: I4
likelihood: L2
fidelity_modifier: false
production_rescore: false
disclosure: embargoed
embargo_condition: "the deny set covers every high-risk lane with a KV path, verified against live OpenBao"
embargo_since: "2026-08-20"
escalation: none
last_checked: "2026-08-20T05:40:00Z"
next_check: "2026-08-20T05:40:00Z"
cadence: instant
clean_streak: 0
graded_by: risk-nexus
ruling: RISK-RULING-2026-08-20
---

# RISK-F-0009 — 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 <lane> --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/<domain>/<workload>/<bundle>` — 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`

## Register ruling — 2026-08-20

**Renumbered from `RISK-F-0004`.** `ops-warden` filed it as `RISK-F-0004`,
which this register had already assigned to `tenant-engine`'s unfiltered event
read hours earlier. Earlier id keeps it; the newcomer moves. Nothing about the
finding changes, and the filing contract now says how ids are allocated so the
next reporter does not hit this.

`high` (`I4` × `L2`), embargoed, no escalation.

**`I4` on the worst uncovered lane.** Eight high-risk lanes have a concrete KV
path the policy does not deny. Most are `I3`-shaped inside their own system;
`scaleway-bootstrap` and `agent-harness-forgejo-deploy` are not — cloud account
bootstrap credentials and a forge deploy key propagate past the system that
holds them.

**`L2`.** It needs an agent token carrying a `workload-kv-read-*` policy, which
the estate does grant. The register holds `ops-warden`'s two stated limits
rather than resolving them in either direction: the comparison is static against
the policy *file* because their operator token is expired (`bao token lookup` →
403), so **the deployed policy may differ**; and whether any agent token
currently carries `agent-high-risk-boundary` together with a
`workload-kv-read-*` policy is not established.

**No fidelity modifier, same call as `RISK-F-0003`.** `ADR-0004` describes two
independent layers and one of them covers a third of the lanes, so the
documentation overstates the control — but the modifier is scoped to
attestations produced at runtime, not to documentation drift. Noted twice now
in the same system; if it recurs a third time the modifier's scope is what
should be re-examined, not the finding.

**No escalation.** `railiance-platform` owns the policy, `ops-warden` owns the
catalog, and they have not disagreed about anything — trigger 4 needs a failed
routing exchange, not merely two repos. `ops-warden`'s suggestion that the deny
set be generated from the catalog rather than maintained twice is routed as a
suggestion, which is what it was offered as.

**The pre-existing point is the important one.** Four of the eight uncovered
lanes were already graded `high` before the 2026-08-19 regrade. The divergence
is not a consequence of that work; the regrade only made the two lists
comparable enough to see it. A register that took credit for finding a fresh
defect here would be misreading its own evidence.

**Disclosure: embargoed**, and it changes `RISK-F-0003`'s embargo too. This
names eight live KV paths that nothing denies.

**One expired credential is blocking verification** of both this finding and
`RISK-F-0003`'s mitigation. That is not a finding — nothing is wrong with the
estate because a token expired — but it is why two gradings here rest on file
comparison rather than a probe, and the register says so rather than implying
otherwise.

## Reviews

- **2026-08-20** — renumbered, graded. Cadence starts at `instant`: nothing
  about this has been checked twice yet. Open at the next check: does the
  deployed policy match the file; do any agent tokens carry both policies; has
  `railiance-platform` taken the catalog-generated deny set.