# Scope

## One-liner

`whitehat-security` is NetKingdom's authorization-bound offensive-security
tooling for producing adversarial evidence about security claims.

## Core idea

The repository turns stated security properties into dated, reproducible attack
attempts. It remains separate from the systems it tests, reports findings
without grading their severity, and never treats a passing probe as proof that a
boundary always holds.

## In scope

- Attacker models for tenant isolation, credential confinement, noisy-neighbour
  behavior and erasure verification.
- Differential probes that compare behavior across controlled tenant contexts.
- Known-bad and known-good fixtures that demonstrate every probe can fail.
- Rules of engagement, target authorization, engagement records, abort
  controls and evidence minimization.
- Probe cadence and the resulting assurance/exposure window.
- Delivery of findings and passing-run evidence to `risk-nexus`.

## Out of scope

- Fixing defects in target repositories.
- Assigning severity, disclosure policy or remediation deadlines.
- Replacing mechanical checks owned by a target repository's CI.
- Defining the estate's security model or publishing permanent policy.
- Probing any target without the authorization and engagement records required
  by [the rules of engagement](docs/rules-of-engagement.md).
- Blocking build-mode delivery without a separately recorded decision.

## Safety invariants

- Until the rules of engagement receive personal operator approval, only
  documentation and non-networked fixture design may proceed.
- No live target is authorized by this scope document.
- Every live run names its authorization, target, owner, window, technique,
  credential lane, rate ceiling, abort contact and finding destination.
- A probe stops at the recorded boundary and never follows an adjacent system.
- Evidence records response shape and counts, never real tenant row values or
  credentials.
- Findings leave this repository; repairs do not enter it.

## Relevant when

- A service claims a Tenancy Posture evidence level that requires adversarial
  rather than mechanical evidence.
- A boundary must be tested using a leaked runtime credential or hostile tenant
  context.
- The estate needs to know when a probe last ran, what attacker it modeled, and
  whether it was proven against a known-bad fixture.

## Not relevant when

- A repository needs unit, schema or provisioning tests for its own code.
- A finding needs triage, severity or disclosure handling; use `risk-nexus`.
- Permanent policy needs publication; use `policy-nexus`.
- The desired activity falls outside an approved engagement boundary.

## Current state

- Repository status: active.
- Active plan: `WHITEHAT-WP-0001`.
- `T01` is in progress: the rules of engagement are drafted and awaiting
  personal operator approval.
- No live probe traffic is authorized yet.
- `T02` through `T07` remain gated by `T01`.

## Relationships

- Owner and security canon: `net-kingdom`.
- Finding intake, severity and disclosure: `risk-nexus`.
- Permanent publication: `policy-nexus`.
- Initial proposed target owners: `tenant-engine`, `audit-core` and
  `flex-auth`.

## Getting oriented

1. Read [`INTENT.md`](INTENT.md) for the durable purpose and ownership model.
2. Read [the rules of engagement](docs/rules-of-engagement.md) before any probe
   design or execution.
3. Read [`WHITEHAT-WP-0001`](workplans/WHITEHAT-WP-0001-cross-tenant-evidence.md)
   for active tasks and sequencing.