sec (9/9): document that scanners must not print secrets into raw evidence#33
Open
jesse-merhi wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
sec (9/9): document that scanners must not print secrets into raw evidence#33jesse-merhi wants to merge 1 commit into
jesse-merhi wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
…er evidence ClawScan preserves a user-defined scanner's stdout verbatim as raw evidence, so a secret the scanner prints into its own JSON output is persisted as-is. Unlike declared env values in error text, ClawScan cannot redact inside raw evidence without corrupting it. Document that a scanner must not echo credentials into its report (finding 9, resolved as a documented author contract rather than code). Also correct the scanner id rule to note the lowercase and 64-character limits added in the hardening series.
|
ClawSweeper status: review started. I am starting a fresh review of this pull request: sec (9/9): document that scanners must not print secrets into raw evidence This is item 1/1 in the current shard. Shard 0/1. This placeholder means the worker is alive and reading the current context. I will edit this same comment with the actual review when the claws are done clicking. Crustacean status: shell secured, claws on keyboard, evidence pebbles being sorted. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes
Documentation only. Adds a note to
docs/scanners.mdtelling user-definedscanner authors not to print secrets into their JSON evidence, and corrects
the scanner-
idfield description to match the validation added earlier in theseries (lowercase, ≤64 chars).
Why it matters (finding 9)
The hardening series found nine issues. Eight are code fixes (#25–#32). The
ninth is not something ClawScan can fix in code without breaking its core
contract:
rawness is the point (auditable, unmodified scanner output).
envvalues from scanner error text(sec (7/9): redact declared scanner env values from error text #31), but redacting inside raw evidence would corrupt the evidence.
So finding 9 is the scanner author's contract, documented here rather than
enforced in code. This was an explicit decision, not an oversight.
The note
Scope
sec 9 of 9; stacked on #32. Docs source only — generated
dist/docs-siteisleft to the release step per repo policy. Merge order:
main → #23 → #24 → #25 … #32 → this.Verification
Prose + one table cell. No code paths touched;
gobuild/test unaffected.