288c0883773191f91946e19e0565a2096d8aeba1
3
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 ekklesiaandClaude Opus 5
|
288c088377 |
docs: close Phase 5D security hardening
The documentation still described Phase 5D as in progress, Phase 6 as blocked, and a disposable-runner isolation proof as a prerequisite for opening the real pull request. All five passes and the independent whole-repository re-audit have landed, so those statements no longer match the accepted operating model. The README's current status now records Phase 5D as complete under the current trusted-contributor, not-yet-deployed threat model, with Phase 6 unblocked, and gains a pass 5 closure paragraph covering the re-audit, the repository-local supply-chain and dependency fixes, the accepted trusted-code-only CI boundary, and what remains required before untrusted CI or a public launch. The pass 1-4 paragraphs keep their technical content unchanged; only their tense changes, so each reads as what was outstanding at the close of that pass rather than as a current claim. `platform-architecture.md` no longer stops at pass 1 or says passes 2-5 are unfinished; it summarizes all five passes and defers the remaining operational limitations to the security document. `security.md` states the trusted-code-only operating rule explicitly and replaces "CI blockers before the real pull request is opened" with "Requirements before executing untrusted contributions", framing the five hardening items as prerequisites for relaxing that rule rather than as Phase 6 blockers, and naming an isolated hosted-runner service as an accepted alternative. The Gitea 1.24.2 warnings, the scope of `persist-credentials: false`, and the unverified runner topology and job-token authority are preserved verbatim; no external Gitea setting is claimed. The launch checklist is marked as gating a public launch, not development. Both Doctor examples are corrected to the real three-migration output, adding `core:0002_authorization_integrity · 634294731180`. The stale sentence calling Core authorization the next architectural phase is refreshed. ADRs 0017-0020 are untouched: their statements that later passes were outstanding are historical records made when each was accepted. Documentation only — no production code, test, workflow, dependency, migration, or schema change. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]> |
||
|
ekklesiaandClaude Opus 5
|
a2db774b8c |
docs: correct Gitea Actions guarantees
The security document claimed the CI workflow "is least privilege" because it declares `permissions: contents: read`. That is not true on the server this repository actually uses. The inventoried server is Gitea 1.24.2, and its official comparison page lists `permissions` / `jobs.<job_id>.permissions`, `concurrency`, and `jobs.<job_id>.timeout-minutes` under unsupported workflow syntax — verified against https://docs.gitea.com/1.24/usage/actions/comparison rather than assumed. On this server those keys are inert, so the branch cannot claim the in-job GITEA_TOKEN is read-only, and cannot claim YAML-enforced timeout or concurrency behavior. Job-token permission controls, repository/owner defaults, and server-side maximum-permission clamping arrive in the 1.26 feature line (https://docs.gitea.com/1.26/usage/actions/token-permissions). The document now separates what is actually true of this repository — full-SHA action pins, frozen-lockfile install, no pull_request_target, no referenced secret, `persist-credentials: false` on every checkout, and the declared `permissions` block — from what the server enforces. It also states precisely what `persist-credentials: false` proves: checkout leaves no credential in `.git/config` for a later step, which is not the same as removing or reducing the job token. The CI blockers are recorded: upgrade to a reviewed supported release, configure repository/owner defaults and a maximum permission, prove against the real server what the token cannot do, move timeout/cancellation/ teardown into the trusted provisioner and reaper, and finish the disposable-guest proof before opening the real pull request. The workflow keeps every declaration — they are already correct for a supported Gitea release and for GitHub Actions — and gains a comment saying plainly that this server ignores them, so no future reader mistakes them for enforcement. Nothing about runners, proxies, firewalls, or deployment is asserted here. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]> |
||
|
ekklesiaandClaude Opus 5
|
07a3c61083 |
docs: define deployment trust boundaries
One canonical security document, linked from the README, platform architecture, and module-development guide, stating what the boundaries actually protect against — and, more importantly, what they do not. Installed modules are trusted compiled backend code. A module runs arbitrary JavaScript inside the API process and shares its PostgreSQL role and pool, so `ModuleDatabase.execute` gives it the API's full database authority over every table, including identity, grants, owner, bootstrap, and audit. Table prefixes, manifests, permission declarations, route validation, frozen contexts, typed facades, and the capability registry are correctness and coordination boundaries that assume a cooperative module; none of them constrains one that is not. There is no process, container, syscall, filesystem, network, database-role, schema, tenant, or resource sandbox between a module and Core, and the document says so in those words, along with what would have to be built before untrusted modules could be accepted. It also records the honest deployment state: Ekklesia is not deployed. There is no production instance, reverse proxy, public listener, or deployment automation anywhere in this repository, and no `.env` has ever been committed. The loopback listen default and the production signup refusal are real, but a config default is not a firewall, so the origin-reachability, proxy-overwrite, header-spoofing, and trusted-peer properties a public launch needs are written as a launch-blocking checklist rather than as guarantees. The per-process authentication limiter is described as exactly that, valid only while signup stays disabled and exactly one instance serves traffic. The CI section records the workflow's verified posture and deliberately stops there: a pull request can edit `runs-on`, so a workflow file cannot be the boundary, and the runner topology is not described as though it had been verified. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]> |