secrets-engine/tests/test_decision_replay.py
tegwick 80eafafe5b fix: send the tenant the policy package scopes us to, and adopt v2
build_action_request emitted no tenant field at all. The deployed
secrets-engine.catalog-lane.lifecycle v2 package reads

  known_tenant   := "tenant:platform"
  request_tenant := object.get(input, "tenant", "")

so an absent tenant is not an ignored field, it matches the wrong_tenant
first-denial branch. Every gated action this engine sent would have been
denied -- and the omission also produced a request_digest that could match
no correctly issued decision, since tenant is hashed material. That is the
same class of defect as hashing excluded fields, arriving from the other
direction, and again only a real artifact exposed it.

Found by answering the GLAS-WP-0015 tenant-alignment question instead of
assuming the values lined up.

- REQUEST_TENANT is pinned against the vendored allow envelopes, so a
  package retenanting fails a test rather than denying production.
- An empty tenant is refused at build time.
- Accepted policy version moves v1 -> v2. v1 had no tenant rule and failed
  open: a rotate under tenant:coulomb returned allow against the deployed
  package. flex-auth superseded rather than amended it, because a fail-open
  correction has to be visible as a version change. A test pins that a v1
  decision is refused.
- Vendored decision_wrong_tenant_deny.json as the denial evidence glas
  asked for, with tests that we refuse it on effect before anything else
  and that a deny legally carries no lifetime.

docs/tenant-alignment.md states the three tenant values as this repo holds
them. It does not resolve the JWT/store mapping: service_auth.TENANT is
tenant:coulomb, which is exactly the value the package denies. That is
either two layers sharing a namespace format or one wrong constant, and
picking between them without an owner ruling is the fail-open shape
GH-DEC-2026-008 rejected for action vocabularies. Both constants stay as
they are, deliberately not unified.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01E4tNMAYcSQmZWUE4wqP4ij

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 715726@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 80a42b32-cba6-4b23-8be0-68819b1a6092
2026-09-06 22:32:54 +02:00

431 lines
17 KiB
Python

"""Digest join verified against real flex-auth DecisionEnvelopes (FLEX-WP-0021-T03).
These replace a hand-maintained pin that was computed *including* the request
`id`. docs/canonical-request-digest.md excludes `id`, `policy_version` and
`caring_context` from the hashed material, and both real envelopes confirm it:
a digest computed over the old material matches no issued decision, which would
have failed closed against every correct allow.
Both fixtures are required. `provenance.input_claim_digests.context` appears
only when the request carries a non-empty context, so a validator asserting it
is always present passes `destroy` and fails `rotate`.
"""
import json
from datetime import datetime, timedelta, timezone
from pathlib import Path
import pytest
from types import SimpleNamespace
from secrets_engine.authorization import (
REQUEST_TENANT,
approval_binding_digest,
build_action_request,
digest_material,
digest_material,
request_digest,
validate_decision_envelope,
)
from secrets_engine.errors import DecisionError
FIXTURES = Path(__file__).parent / "fixtures" / "flex-auth-replay"
PACKAGE_DIGEST = "sha256:bd11c5fe77ce6439c65fea225ad6b71d2110efc5e7b5bc9b499c59cd0a53b8b4"
SNAPSHOT_DIGEST = "sha256:f5a309bc0b36721fd6d9ad7f53eb21222162bc2eac62a0ab0802a9a1d51340bb"
CASES = {
"rotate": {
"file": "decision_rotate.json",
"digest": "sha256:de67324f54187055307a833235f83ced9fcd3a20952a27b3d19493ed39734345",
"action": "rotate",
"context_claim_digest": None,
},
"destroy": {
"file": "decision_destroy_dual_control.json",
"digest": "sha256:c749ee2dc3cdf927a70a3e5b27cff4d97a438d3264153b4b2e3bcacbaf82091a",
"action": "destroy",
"context_claim_digest": "sha256:8b73d29ecef286d42e03d2420531d6c45219f325a7ae004c1ecfc781203a2800",
},
}
def _envelope(name):
return json.loads((FIXTURES / CASES[name]["file"]).read_text())
def _request_from(envelope):
"""Rebuild the normalized tuple the binding carries.
Per the contract, a consumer re-hashing the *original unenriched* request
will not match a decision that turned on registry attributes; the binding is
the evaluator's statement of what it hashed.
"""
binding = envelope["binding"]
request = {"id": envelope["request_id"]}
for key in ("tenant", "subject", "action", "resource"):
if binding.get(key) is not None:
request[key] = binding[key]
if binding.get("context") is not None:
request["context"] = binding["context"]
return request
def _refresh_lifetime(envelope):
"""Lifetime moves with the clock and must never be pinned."""
now = datetime.now(timezone.utc)
envelope["lifetime"]["not_before"] = (now - timedelta(minutes=1)).strftime(
"%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ"
)
envelope["lifetime"]["expires_at"] = (now + timedelta(minutes=14)).strftime(
"%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ"
)
return envelope
@pytest.mark.parametrize("name", list(CASES))
def test_request_digest_matches_the_issued_decision(name):
envelope = _envelope(name)
expected = CASES[name]["digest"]
assert envelope["binding"]["request_digest"] == expected, "fixture drifted"
assert request_digest(_request_from(envelope)) == expected
@pytest.mark.parametrize("name", list(CASES))
def test_correlation_fields_are_not_hashed(name):
"""id, policy_version and caring_context must not move the digest."""
request = _request_from(envelope := _envelope(name))
baseline = request_digest(request)
assert baseline == envelope["binding"]["request_digest"]
for field, value in (
("id", "check:some-other-correlation-id"),
("policy_version", "v99"),
("caring_context", {"anything": "here"}),
):
assert request_digest({**request, field: value}) == baseline, field
stripped = {k: v for k, v in request.items() if k != "id"}
assert request_digest(stripped) == baseline
@pytest.mark.parametrize("name", list(CASES))
def test_digest_material_is_exactly_the_published_tuple(name):
material = digest_material(_request_from(_envelope(name)))
assert set(material) <= {"tenant", "subject", "action", "resource", "context"}
assert "id" not in material
@pytest.mark.parametrize("name", list(CASES))
def test_real_envelope_validates_against_the_published_package(name):
envelope = _refresh_lifetime(_envelope(name))
result = validate_decision_envelope(
envelope,
_request_from(envelope),
accepted_policy_packages={"secrets-engine.catalog-lane.lifecycle"},
accepted_policy_versions={"v2"},
)
assert result.action == CASES[name]["action"]
assert result.subject_id == "secrets-engine"
@pytest.mark.parametrize("name", list(CASES))
def test_provenance_digests_are_pinned(name):
provenance = _envelope(name)["provenance"]
assert provenance["policy_package_digest"] == PACKAGE_DIGEST
assert provenance["registry_snapshot_digest"] == SNAPSHOT_DIGEST
assert provenance["evaluator"] == "flex-auth/local"
assert provenance["mode"] == "standalone"
@pytest.mark.parametrize("name", list(CASES))
def test_input_claim_digest_is_present_only_with_a_context(name):
"""The reason two fixtures exist: this field is conditional."""
provenance = _envelope(name)["provenance"]
expected = CASES[name]["context_claim_digest"]
actual = (provenance.get("input_claim_digests") or {}).get("context")
assert actual == expected
@pytest.mark.parametrize("name", list(CASES))
def test_a_tampered_binding_field_breaks_the_digest(name):
envelope = _envelope(name)
request = _request_from(envelope)
request["action"] = "handoff"
assert request_digest(request) != envelope["binding"]["request_digest"]
def test_expired_real_envelope_fails_closed():
"""The shipped lifetime is 15m from allow_ttl and has long since passed."""
with pytest.raises(DecisionError, match="lifetime has expired"):
envelope = _envelope("rotate")
validate_decision_envelope(
envelope,
_request_from(envelope),
accepted_policy_packages={"secrets-engine.catalog-lane.lifecycle"},
accepted_policy_versions={"v2"},
)
def test_embedded_claim_uses_approval_engine_vocabulary_not_ours():
"""The published vocabulary gap, asserted rather than described.
The dual-control request carries a complete approval-claim in
context.approval. Its binding speaks approval-engine's language while the
decision speaks ours, and no mapping between them is published -- which is
why this engine compares pdp_digest and refuses to derive a native digest
from its own vocabulary.
"""
envelope = _envelope("destroy")
claim = envelope["binding"]["context"]["approval"]
assert claim["kind"] == "approval-claim"
assert claim["issuer"] == "approval-engine"
assert claim["valid_now"] is True
assert claim["binding"]["action"] == "secrets.kv.destroy"
assert envelope["binding"]["action"] == "destroy"
assert claim["binding"]["action"] != envelope["binding"]["action"]
assert set(claim["binding"]["target"]) == {"id", "stage"}
assert claim["binding"]["target"]["id"] != envelope["resource"]["id"]
APPROVAL_BINDING_DIGEST = (
"sha256:fa07becfaa471394d06aee5fa3cd66352bf0cc69ef24900240489684cda8cd56"
)
def test_embedded_claim_pdp_digest_cannot_equal_the_carrying_request_digest():
"""Carrying the claim inside a hashed context makes the two unequal.
context is part of the digest material, so embedding an approval-claim
changes the request digest of the very request that carries it. A
pdp_digest recorded at issue time therefore cannot equal the final digest
of the dual-control request. This is why comparing pdp_digest against
request_digest can never pass and would fail destroy closed forever.
"""
envelope = _envelope("destroy")
binding = envelope["binding"]
pdp = binding["context"]["approval"]["binding"]["pdp_digest"]
request = _request_from(envelope)
assert request_digest(request) == binding["request_digest"]
assert pdp != binding["request_digest"]
def test_pdp_digest_equals_the_published_approval_binding_digest():
"""FLEX-DEC-2026-007 closed the circularity, and we reproduce the value.
``approval_binding_digest`` is the canonical digest with context.approval
removed. Recomputing it here from our own canonical implementation is the
hermetic proof that this engine hashes the same material flex-auth does --
a pin alone would only assert the constant, not that we can derive it.
"""
envelope = _envelope("destroy")
binding = envelope["binding"]
pdp = binding["context"]["approval"]["binding"]["pdp_digest"]
assert binding["approval_binding_digest"] == APPROVAL_BINDING_DIGEST
assert pdp == APPROVAL_BINDING_DIGEST
assert approval_binding_digest(_request_from(envelope)) == APPROVAL_BINDING_DIGEST
def test_approval_binding_digest_is_not_a_replay_identity():
"""It must not collapse into request_digest, or an allow becomes replayable.
Two requests differing only in which approval was presented share an
approval_binding_digest while their decisions differ -- one allows, one
denies dual_control_required. The fixture asserts the two digests disagree
on a claim-bearing request so the distinction stays real.
"""
envelope = _envelope("destroy")
binding = envelope["binding"]
assert binding["approval_binding_digest"] != binding["request_digest"]
def test_ordinary_decision_carries_no_approval_binding_digest():
"""The field is omitted, not duplicated, on a claim-free decision."""
binding = _envelope("rotate")["binding"]
assert "approval" not in binding.get("context", {})
assert "approval_binding_digest" not in binding
def test_embedded_claim_declares_the_pdp_path():
"""pdp_path is the issuer's declaration, and it is what our PEP requires.
Path intent is never inferred from a pdp_digest that happens to be present;
approvals issued before approval-engine schema v3 carry pdp_path false
regardless of any digest they hold.
"""
claim = _envelope("destroy")["binding"]["context"]["approval"]
assert claim["binding"]["pdp_path"] is True
def test_decision_validation_ties_the_claim_to_the_approval_binding_digest():
"""Step 2 checks the identity against the real envelope, not a local guess.
The PEP knows the claim's pdp_digest from step 1. When the request it sent
carried that claim, the decision must name the same claim-free envelope, or
the approval was issued against some other request.
"""
envelope = _refresh_lifetime(_envelope("destroy"))
request = _request_from(envelope)
result = validate_decision_envelope(
envelope,
request,
accepted_policy_packages={"secrets-engine.catalog-lane.lifecycle"},
accepted_policy_versions={"v2"},
expected_approval_binding_digest=APPROVAL_BINDING_DIGEST,
)
assert result.action == "destroy"
with pytest.raises(DecisionError, match="approval binding digest"):
validate_decision_envelope(
envelope,
request,
accepted_policy_packages={"secrets-engine.catalog-lane.lifecycle"},
accepted_policy_versions={"v2"},
expected_approval_binding_digest="sha256:" + "c" * 64,
)
def test_claim_bearing_request_without_a_binding_digest_fails_closed():
"""A decision that records no binding digest cannot tie the claim to itself.
Comparing against request_digest instead would be the fail-open direction
the whole field exists to prevent, so the absence is refused outright.
"""
envelope = _refresh_lifetime(_envelope("destroy"))
request = _request_from(envelope)
del envelope["binding"]["approval_binding_digest"]
with pytest.raises(DecisionError, match="records no approval_binding_digest"):
validate_decision_envelope(
envelope,
request,
accepted_policy_packages={"secrets-engine.catalog-lane.lifecycle"},
accepted_policy_versions={"v2"},
expected_approval_binding_digest=APPROVAL_BINDING_DIGEST,
)
def test_a_forged_binding_digest_is_recomputed_not_trusted():
"""The field is verified against our own canonical digest, never taken on faith."""
envelope = _refresh_lifetime(_envelope("destroy"))
request = _request_from(envelope)
envelope["binding"]["approval_binding_digest"] = "sha256:" + "d" * 64
with pytest.raises(DecisionError, match="does not match this request"):
validate_decision_envelope(
envelope,
request,
accepted_policy_packages={"secrets-engine.catalog-lane.lifecycle"},
accepted_policy_versions={"v2"},
)
# --- tenant scoping (v2) -----------------------------------------------------
#
# GLAS-WP-0015 asked for the exact CheckRequest tenant and wrong-tenant denial
# evidence. These are that evidence, taken from a real deny envelope rather than
# asserted, plus the pin that stops our request tenant drifting from the package
# it is scoped by.
WRONG_TENANT_FIXTURE = "decision_wrong_tenant_deny.json"
def test_our_request_tenant_is_the_package_known_tenant():
"""The tenant we send must be the one the package allows.
v2 reads request_tenant := object.get(input, "tenant", "") and allows only
known_tenant := "tenant:platform". Pinning our constant against the real
allow envelopes means a package retenanting shows up here rather than as a
wrong_tenant denial in production.
"""
for name in ("rotate", "destroy"):
assert _envelope(name)["binding"]["tenant"] == REQUEST_TENANT
def test_built_request_carries_the_tenant_and_hashes_it():
"""An absent tenant is a denial, not an ignored field, so it must be sent.
tenant is part of the digest material, so omitting it also produces a digest
that matches no correctly issued decision -- the same class of defect as
hashing excluded fields, arriving from the other direction.
"""
entry = SimpleNamespace(id="glas-primary", stage="prod")
request = build_action_request(
entry,
"rotate",
subject_id="secrets-engine",
subject_type="service",
purpose="rotate-exposed-key",
fields=["password"],
)
assert request["tenant"] == REQUEST_TENANT
assert "tenant" in digest_material(request)
untenanted = dict(request)
del untenanted["tenant"]
assert request_digest(untenanted) != request_digest(request)
def test_build_action_request_refuses_an_empty_tenant():
entry = SimpleNamespace(id="glas-primary", stage="prod")
with pytest.raises(DecisionError, match="requires a tenant"):
build_action_request(
entry,
"rotate",
subject_id="secrets-engine",
subject_type="service",
purpose="rotate-exposed-key",
tenant="",
)
def test_wrong_tenant_deny_envelope_fails_closed():
"""Wrong-tenant denial evidence, from a real v2 deny envelope.
flex-auth sent tenant:coulomb on an otherwise-valid rotate and the package
denied it with matched_rule wrong_tenant, so the tenant alone carried the
denial. Our consumer must refuse it on effect before anything else -- a deny
is not a decision we may act on, whatever else it validates.
"""
# Not lifetime-refreshed: a deny carries no lifetime at all, which is the
# property test_wrong_tenant_deny_carries_no_lifetime pins.
envelope = json.loads((FIXTURES / WRONG_TENANT_FIXTURE).read_text())
assert envelope["effect"] == "deny"
assert envelope["reason"] == "wrong_tenant"
assert envelope["matched_rule"] == "wrong_tenant"
assert envelope["binding"]["tenant"] == "tenant:coulomb"
assert envelope["binding"]["tenant"] != REQUEST_TENANT
with pytest.raises(DecisionError, match="effect is not allow"):
validate_decision_envelope(
envelope,
_request_from(envelope),
accepted_policy_packages={"secrets-engine.catalog-lane.lifecycle"},
accepted_policy_versions={"v2"},
)
def test_wrong_tenant_deny_carries_no_lifetime():
"""A deny has no lifetime, which is why effect must be checked first.
DecisionEnvelope requires lifetime only when effect is allow. A consumer
that validated lifetime before effect would raise a confusing missing-field
error on a perfectly well-formed denial.
"""
envelope = json.loads((FIXTURES / WRONG_TENANT_FIXTURE).read_text())
assert envelope.get("lifetime") is None
def test_the_superseded_v1_package_is_not_accepted():
"""v1 had no tenant rule and failed open; pinning it must not be possible.
A consumer still pinned to v1 would keep getting allows it should never
have had and could not tell from the version string that the rule changed
underneath it, which is exactly why flex-auth superseded v1 rather than
amending it.
"""
envelope = _refresh_lifetime(_envelope("rotate"))
with pytest.raises(DecisionError, match="policy version is not accepted"):
validate_decision_envelope(
envelope,
_request_from(envelope),
accepted_policy_packages={"secrets-engine.catalog-lane.lifecycle"},
accepted_policy_versions={"v1"},
)