Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History

README.md

Security Implementation Plans

Generated by the improve skill on 2026-09-01 at commit 2d978f84. Execute in the order below unless dependencies say otherwise. Each executor must read its plan fully, honor STOP conditions, run every verification gate, and update its status row.

Execution Order And Status

Plan Title Priority Effort Depends on Status
001 Pin privileged GitHub Actions dependencies P1 S - TODO
002 Require authentication on route-based MCP P1 M 001 TODO
003 Enforce shared-state exposure policy on direct MCP reads P1 S 002 TODO
004 Contain remote asset materialization P1 S - DONE
005 Block Data Inspector prototype-chain writes P1 S - DONE
006 Validate request-derived authentication-link origins P1 M - TODO
007 Reject pre-existing symlink escapes from filesystem roots P2 M - TODO

Status values: TODO | IN PROGRESS | DONE | BLOCKED (with reason) | REJECTED (with rationale)

Dependency Notes

  • Plan 001 lands first because the release path should stop following mutable privileged workflow code before security fixes are published.
  • Plan 003 follows Plan 002 so MCP's read policy is tested behind the corrected identity boundary. It may be developed in parallel but should land immediately after Plan 002.
  • Plans 004-007 are independent and can execute in separate worktrees. Each executor runs its plan's drift command before editing; only plans/README.md overlaps.

Findings Considered And Rejected

  • Dependency audit output reported critical/high advisories in tar, postcss, sharp, svgo, brace-expansion, and nanoid, but review did not establish a reachable vulnerable runtime or distribution path. Reassess when dependency call paths or advisory conditions change.
  • Open Graph private-address fetching matches a tool whose purpose includes inspecting local development URLs; no separate private-network boundary is currently documented.
  • Code-server workspace selection is an explicit tool input, so arbitrary folder selection alone was not treated as a containment bypass.
  • Bearer-token expiration and static-token revocation behavior are lifecycle policy choices rather than implementation bypasses under the documented model.
  • Executable asset formats share the user app's development trust boundary; the audit did not establish a distinct origin boundary that the current behavior violates.

Audit Scope

This was a standard-effort, hotspot-weighted security audit of core RPC/auth/transports, hub browser boundaries, built-in devframes, framework kits, CI, starter, and representative examples. It did not audit correctness, performance, general test coverage, architecture, documentation quality, or product direction. Findings selected for plans were 1-6 plus the MCP shared-state dependency identified as finding 8.