Kjell Tore Guttormsen
ddaae5d637
Commons konsumeres som `shared/`-subtree av to repo som allerede ligger i `open/`. Innholdet var dermed offentlig fra før, men PEKEREN var det ikke: `shared/README.md` i open/portfolio-optimiser lenker til `ktg/`-namespacet og sier «All edits land in commons first (clone it, commit, push there)» — en URL en fremmed får 404 på. Dette gjør repoet publiserbart under open/. README: hodet var skrevet som om fila fortsatt lå i en konsuments `shared/`. H1 var `# shared/ — framework-neutral core`, og innledningen sa «this repository — the method built on MAF» — som beskriver et ANNET repo når fila leses fra commons' rot. Siste linje lenket til docs/plan/2026-06-26-maalbilde-agentic-loop.md, som ikke finnes her (den bor i portfolio-optimiser). Alle tre rettet; de to konsumentene er nå utgående lenker, ikke «dette repoet». Lagt til for `shared-asset`-klassen (repo-standard): LICENSE (MIT, byte-likt med soesknene) og `## Non-goals`. Klassen krever ikke `## Install` — repoet vendorers, det installeres ikke. CONTRIBUTING/SECURITY/CODE_OF_CONDUCT kreves av INGEN klasse; de er med for konsistens med de to soesknene. CONTRIBUTING er SKREVET OM, ikke kopiert: soesknenes versjon ber om Pull Requests, men org-ops slo PR-fanen av paa alle 19 repo fordi CONVENTIONS.md publiserer at PR-er ikke aksepteres. Aa kopiere den ville importert en motsigelse. SECURITY er omskrevet for et repo uten kjoerbar kode: angrepsflaten er spec- tekst som binder konsumentene, ikke et avhengighetstre. Gate: repo-standard v0.2.2, klasse shared-asset — 0 ERROR, 8 passerte. De 3 gjenstaaende WARN er falske positive mot nav-golden-fixturene (bundle-relative lenker + tilsiktede escape-nyttelaster som IKKE skal resolve). Fixturene er uroert: de konsumeres som ekte gate av portfolio-optimiser (0d50ab8). Verifisert foer commit: ingen secrets i sporet innhold eller i historikkens 37 commits; ingen e-post utover org-kontakten; STATE.md og *.local.md fortsatt usporet. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013XuKPjWwJZNUponVrhoyY1
62 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
62 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
# Security Policy
|
|
|
|
## Reporting a Vulnerability
|
|
|
|
If you discover a security issue, please report it responsibly.
|
|
|
|
**Please do NOT report security issues through public issues.**
|
|
|
|
### How to Report
|
|
|
|
Email: hello@fromaitochitta.com
|
|
|
|
Include:
|
|
- Description of the issue
|
|
- Steps to reproduce
|
|
- Potential impact
|
|
- Any suggested fixes (optional)
|
|
|
|
### What to Expect
|
|
|
|
- Acknowledgment within 48 hours
|
|
- Regular updates on progress
|
|
- Credit in the fix announcement (if desired)
|
|
|
|
## What the attack surface here actually is
|
|
|
|
This repository ships **no executable code** — no package, no pipeline, no CLI. It contains
|
|
normative specifications, example knowledge bundles, and golden fixtures. There is no dependency
|
|
tree to keep patched and nothing here that runs on your machine.
|
|
|
|
That narrows the realistic reports to three kinds, and all three are worth sending:
|
|
|
|
1. **A specification that mandates unsafe behaviour.** The specs are binding on the
|
|
implementations that consume them, so a weak rule propagates. The ingest specification in
|
|
particular governs a boundary where untrusted external data enters the system: its
|
|
credential-reference rule (manifests carry *references* to credentials, never the credentials
|
|
themselves) and its verdict-layer reservation exist for this reason. A gap in that text is a
|
|
real vulnerability report even though no code changes.
|
|
2. **A secret or personal data in the repository or its history.** The example bundles are
|
|
synthetic. If you find something that is not, report it — including in the git history, which
|
|
is public in full.
|
|
3. **A fixture that would make a consuming gate pass when it should fail.** The golden suites are
|
|
the only ground truth the implementations check themselves against. A fixture that silently
|
|
sanctions unsafe behaviour weakens every consumer at once.
|
|
|
|
## Supported Versions
|
|
|
|
| Version | Supported |
|
|
| ------- | ------------------ |
|
|
| latest | :white_check_mark: |
|
|
| < latest| :x: |
|
|
|
|
Consumers vendor this repository as a `git subtree`, so a fix here reaches them only when they
|
|
pull. If a report leads to a change in normative text, both reference implementations are
|
|
notified — but their pull is their own action, on their own schedule.
|
|
|
|
## Scope Note
|
|
|
|
The portfolio-optimiser method is a **technical framework**. Deploying organizations own their
|
|
own data protection, risk, and compliance assessments (DPIA/ROS). The specifications describe
|
|
technical prerequisites (local-only operation, provenance, no silent egress) but make no
|
|
compliance guarantees.
|