open/llm-security
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases 1 Activity

Squashed 'scanners/commons/' changes from 0ffee85..532d70d

Browse source 
532d70d release(0.2.0): the contract gained a MUST, so the tag has to move
946f51d fix(active-content,conformance): cite line numbers per commit — they do not resolve at the pin
bdcb1f1 feat(conformance): ship the six active-content cases; the id space already existed
807c0d4 feat(spec): add not-applicable, so a single-runtime table stops reading as 7 defects
a1578e6 fix(conformance): record the guard's internal-surface position on _LEX_PAYLOADS
4d351d2 fix(mapping): state that three of four OWASP maps have no production consumer
f082a91 fix(lexicon,docs): retract the claim that the guard's port cites severity.mjs

git-subtree-dir: scanners/commons
git-subtree-split: 532d70d5ed2f9b23a8efad760ef490356cf52ada
This commit is contained in:
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 2026-08-11 13:02:33 +02:00
commit 9b95fc607e
20 changed files with 533 additions and 37 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

73
spec/conformance-corpus.md
View file

@ -19,6 +19,41 @@ engine rejects the pattern behind it — a silently skipped case is an invisible
negative, which is the failure mode this corpus exists to catch. A case that cannot be run
MUST be reported as an error, not as a pass.
### 1.1 Declared tables and `not-applicable`
The runtimes that share this core do not implement the same set of data files, and some
never will: a table can be meaningful in an output gate and meaningless in the surface next
to it. §1 as stated would make every such case a permanent failure, which reports an
architectural difference as a defect and tells a reader nothing.
A runtime claiming conformance therefore MUST declare **the set of commons data files it
implements**, and MUST publish that set alongside its conformance result. A case whose
`scope` (§4) names a data file outside the declared set MUST be reported as
**`not-applicable`** — a third verdict beside pass and fail, and a different thing from the
error of §1. §1's error means *this runtime tried and could not*; `not-applicable` means
*this question was never addressed to this runtime*.
A `not-applicable` case MUST still be enumerated in the result. It MUST NOT be counted as a
pass, and MUST NOT be silently dropped from the denominator: `76/83 passed` and
`76 passed, 7 not-applicable` describe different runtimes, and only the second one can be
checked.
Two constraints keep the verdict from becoming an exit:
- A runtime MUST NOT withdraw a table from its declared set in order to convert failing
cases into `not-applicable` ones. The declaration describes what the runtime implements,
not what it would prefer to be asked. Narrowing it is a visible change to a published
claim, and it MUST be reported as such rather than made quietly between runs.
- `not-applicable` attaches to a **table**, never to a case. A runtime that declares a table
MUST run every case scoped to it, including the ones it fails. Per-case opt-out is exactly
the silent skip §1 forbids.
**What the verdict does not say.** `not-applicable` records that a runtime does not implement
a named commons table. It is not a statement that the runtime is blind to the phenomenon
behind it — a runtime may well detect the same construct through some other mechanism that
this corpus does not constrain, and reading the verdict as a coverage gap would assert
something nobody measured. See §8.
## 2. `input.txt` is bytes, not text
`input.txt` holds the input **verbatim**, UTF-8 encoded. A runtime MUST read it as bytes
@ -115,10 +150,27 @@ So a runtime MUST NOT raise a lexicon finding this case does not list, and MUST
one it does. Whether the same runtime also flags the input as active content, as a carrier,
or as anything else is **not** this case's business.
**"Belongs to" means published in that file, never "shares its prefix."** A runtime MUST
decide membership by looking the id up in the scoped data file, and MUST NOT infer it from
the id's leading segment. The two are not the same set, and the difference is not
hypothetical: one seeding runtime emits `active:oversize-input`, a self-safety flag about its
own scan cap, which carries the `active:` prefix but is no construct in
[`signatures/active-content.json`](../signatures/active-content.json) and is therefore out of
scope for a case scoped there. A prefix-matching implementation would pull it into the
comparison and fail a case over a finding the corpus makes no claim about.
The scoping is what makes the exactness safe. The two seeding runtimes do not implement the
same set of tables — one has no active-content table at all — so a whole-report comparison
would fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the pattern under test. Scoping the
comparison to one published table asks a question both can answer.
comparison to one published table asks a question about that table alone.
Through version 0.1.1 this paragraph ended "…asks a question both can answer", which held
only while every case was scoped to the one table both runtimes implement. It stopped being
true the moment a case was scoped to `signatures/active-content.json`, which only one of them
has. Scope narrows *what* is compared; it does not guarantee that every runtime is a valid
addressee of the comparison. That second question is answered by the declared table set in
§1.1, and a case scoped outside a runtime's declared set is `not-applicable` there rather
than failed.
The exactness is what makes the corpus worth running. A corpus that only checks that the
expected finding is *present* is passed by a runtime that flags everything.
@ -152,6 +204,19 @@ this repository, so the id space cannot reach the filesystem unchanged. `__` doe
anywhere in the ratified id space, so the transform is one-to-one — verified collision-free
across all cases rather than assumed.
The transform carries a consequence that is easy to miss: **a case id is derived from a
pattern id alone, so the corpus holds at most one case per `pattern_id` in single-finding
scopes.** There is nowhere in the name to put a second one. That is a real constraint, not a
formality — a source runtime's own test matrix may well drive two payloads at the same
pattern, as one of the seeding runtimes does for `active:markdown-image`. When it does, the
two payloads MUST be compared *within the case's scope* before a second case is minted: if
their in-scope finding sets are equal, the second case cannot fail in any way the first does
not, and its distinguishing signal lies outside the scope where this corpus makes no claim.
Such a payload MUST NOT be given a discriminated case id; the derivation rule is the
contract, and a suffix would break the reverse transform. It SHOULD instead be recorded as
a named omission in `conformance/manifest.json`, so the drop is visible rather than
inferred from a count.
**A case id is a stable identifier. Changing one is a BREAKING change** and requires a major
bump of the corpus version, exactly like changing a pattern id. Consumers name cases in
their own test suites; a renamed case is a silently disappeared test.
@ -176,3 +241,9 @@ one — it is why each case records how it was produced.
Nor is the corpus a coverage claim. It covers the pattern tables named in
`conformance/manifest.json` under `scope_covered`, and the tables under `scope_planned` are
named there precisely so that their absence is visible rather than inferred.
And a result is only readable next to the declared table set of §1.1. A pass count on its
own does not say which questions were asked: a runtime that implements one table and one
that implements four can print the same number. The declared set is what turns the number
back into a claim — which is also why a `not-applicable` verdict proves nothing in either
direction about the runtime's actual detection. It says the corpus did not ask.