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: fixed
owner: risk-nexus
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: RPF-WP-0013 / RAILIANCE-WP-0022 (finished 2026-08-22)
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: public
publication: pending-handover
publication_id: risk-f-0009-openbao-high-risk-deny-coverage
publication_path: "findings/openbao-high-risk-deny-coverage/v1/index.html"
publication_subtitle: "OpenBao's agent boundary covered only a fraction of high-risk credential lanes; generated source-to-live coverage and deny-wins proof now close the gap."
revision: "fixed-1"
last_reviewed: "2026-09-01"
review_interval: 6m
embargo_lifted: "2026-08-22 — every concrete high-risk KV path is generated into the live deny policy and a dedicated agent identity proved deny-wins"
embargo_was_since: "2026-08-20"
escalation: none
date_fixed: "2026-08-22"
last_checked: "2026-09-01T00:32:44Z"
next_check: "2026-09-01T00:32:44Z"
cadence: instant
clean_streak: 0
graded_by: risk-nexus
ruling: RISK-RULING-2026-08-20
checked_by: "codex/risk-nexus"
---

# 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.

## Live verification — 2026-08-21 (ops-warden)

The exposure section above says the comparison is static and that ops-warden's
token was expired. **The token was not expired** — `bao token lookup` returned a
valid `platform-admin` token from an OIDC login, and `bao policy read
agent-high-risk-boundary` succeeded against `https://bao.coulomb.social`. The
deployed policy has now been read. Reported by the same repo that filed the
static version; correcting our own record.

Three changes, one of them against ourselves:

**1. Six lanes are uncovered, not eight.** The table above lists
`ops-warden-warden-sign-token` (a credential-broker grant, not a KV path) and
`openbao-api-key` (a `<domain>/<workload>/<bundle>` pattern) among the "concrete
KV path" uncovered set — the prose already said the second was a pattern, and the
table counted it anyway. Neither can be expressed as a policy deny. Corrected
split: **6 covered, 6 uncovered with a concrete path, 5 with no address.** The
six that stand are `rapp-qonto-keycape-client`, `agent-harness-forgejo-deploy`,
`email-connect-transactional`, `scaleway-bootstrap`, `whynot-design-npm-publish`,
`audit-core-senders`.

**2. Coverage confirmed at 6 of 17 against the live policy.** The headline was
right and is no longer an inference from a checkout.

**3. New — the deployed policy has drifted from the file.** The file denies
`platform/workloads/core-hub/runtime`; the server does not. No ops-warden
catalog lane maps to that path, so nothing above changes. It matters as evidence
rather than as exposure: this finding flagged "the deployed policy may differ
from the file" as an unconfirmed risk, and it does differ. Any conclusion drawn
from that file alone — by anyone, about any lane — is unsafe. Whether the drift
is an undeployed change or a reverted one is `railiance-platform`'s to say, and
this is not an assertion that `core-hub/runtime` should be denied.

**The suggested direction is now half-built.** `ops-warden/scripts/check_agent_read_boundary.py`
is the check that "fails when a high-risk lane has no corresponding deny" —
run against the deployed policy, falling back to the file only with a loud
warning, exit 1 on any uncovered lane. It is capabilities-only by construction:
it reads the policy document and lane metadata, never a secret value, and never
mints a token. What is still missing is the other half — `railiance-platform`
consuming a generated deny set rather than hand-maintaining one. That half is
theirs, and ops-warden does not amend another repo's control.

**Not established, still.** Whether any agent token carries
`agent-high-risk-boundary`, and whether any carries it together with a
`workload-kv-read-*` policy, remains unverified — confirming it means minting or
inspecting tokens, which is a write against railiance-platform's OpenBao and not
ops-warden's to perform. Exposure remains theoretical to exactly the degree it
was before.

Severity, disclosure and the embargo are `risk-nexus`'s to revise, not ours. Note
that the embargo condition is a report from `railiance-platform` on coverage,
which this does not satisfy — coverage is unchanged, it is now measured rather
than inferred.

## 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.
- **2026-08-20** — clean check: checked against the inbox and the owner's record; nothing moved. Cadence instant → 1h (1 clean in a row); next check 2026-08-20 11:02Z.

## Check — 2026-08-21: measured rather than inferred, and one number corrected down

`ops-warden` ran the live verification. Three changes, one of which matters
beyond this finding.

**The headline stands and is now measured:** coverage confirmed at **6 of 17**
high-risk lanes.

**The uncovered count was wrong in the direction that overstated the finding.**
Eight became **six**: the original eight included `openbao-api-key`, which is a
path *pattern* rather than an address, and `ops-warden-warden-sign-token`, which
is a broker grant — neither is deniable by a policy. The finding's own prose
had already flagged the first as "probably cannot be expressed as a policy
deny" while the table counted it anyway, and `ops-warden` corrected against
themselves rather than leaving it.

The `I4` grade is unaffected: it was scored on the worst uncovered lane, and
`scaleway-bootstrap` and `agent-harness-forgejo-deploy` are both still in the
six.

**The token was never expired.** The finding recorded `bao policy read` as
returning 403 and the comparison as static. `ops-warden` reports the token was
valid the whole time and the read succeeded on the first attempt. A stale claim
about the world sat in the record for a day — the fourth such instance they
self-reported in twelve hours.

### The part that reaches past this finding

**The deployed policy differs from the file.** `RISK-F-0009` named that as an
unconfirmed risk; it is now established. No `ops-warden` lane maps to the
drifted path, so exposure is unchanged — but *"the file is not a safe proxy for
the server"* has moved from suspicion to evidence, and that bears on **every
grade this register makes off a checkout**, including its own method.

`docs/method/verification.md` is amended accordingly.

**The embargo does not lift.** Its condition is a coverage report from
`railiance-platform`, and coverage did not improve — it stopped being an
inference, which is a different thing. `ops-warden` put the correction to them
directly and said so.
- **2026-08-21** — not clean: owner replied; see the dated check section Cadence 1h → instant; checked again immediately.

## Closure — 2026-09-01: generated coverage and live deny-wins proof

`RPF-WP-0013` and `RAILIANCE-WP-0022` consumed the Warden-generated high-risk
path artifact and deployed the result. The source and live readback cover all
**14 concrete entries across 19 high-risk lanes**, with 5 non-concrete or
non-KV lanes correctly classified and **0 uncovered**. A dedicated
`coding-agent-railiance-platform` AppRole carrying the boundary plus one
workload read policy proved deny-wins: data read was denied while metadata
remained readable; the single-use identity was revoked and no secret value was
read.

Risk Nexus re-ran the current platform invariant on 2026-09-01; it reports
`ok: true`, 19 lanes, 14 concrete entries, and zero errors or uncovered paths.
The condition is met with both generated-source and live-state evidence. The
finding is `fixed`, its wait is removed, and its embargo lifts.

- **2026-09-01** — not clean: generated and live coverage now span every concrete high-risk KV path with deny-wins evidence; status fixed and embargo lifted. Cadence instant → instant; checked again immediately.