[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$apiParty6fBuHLCPZ1LTYs42XHdVbjpSDOYYPYzyxeAGwSN5Tp8":3,"$apiParty8ShXWppCX0z4zPfeYRH5MNEL2WMS4Vc3ksR0Ja7McYo":563,"$apiParty8ShXWppCX0z4zPfeYRH5MNEL2WMS4Vc3ksR0Ja7McYo$H93EERW16b":563},{"product_data":4,"scene_data":21,"task_data":407,"modality_data":441,"domain_data":478},[5,9,12,15,18],{"name":6,"value":7,"add_value":8,"describe":8},"Rivo","1","",{"name":10,"value":11,"add_value":8,"describe":8},"Cubo","2",{"name":13,"value":14,"add_value":8,"describe":8},"Moye","3",{"name":16,"value":17,"add_value":8,"describe":8},"Juro","4",{"name":19,"value":20,"add_value":8,"describe":8},"Ordo","5",[22,73,135,197,232,267,302,337,372],{"name":23,"value":7,"add_value":24,"describe":25,"children":26},"Home & Indoor","sofa","AI enhances everyday home life. Our datasets cover real indoor scenes to support smart devices, robotics, and home intelligence.",[27,29,31,33,35,37,40,43,46,49,52,55,58,61,64,67,70],{"name":28,"value":7},"Living Room",{"name":30,"value":11},"Bedroom",{"name":32,"value":14},"Kitchen",{"name":34,"value":17},"Dining Area",{"name":36,"value":20},"Bathroom",{"name":38,"value":39},"Entrance \u002F Foyer","6",{"name":41,"value":42},"Corridor \u002F Hallway","7",{"name":44,"value":45},"Staircase","8",{"name":47,"value":48},"Home Office","9",{"name":50,"value":51},"Hobby \u002F Game Room","10",{"name":53,"value":54},"Worship Space","11",{"name":56,"value":57},"Garage","12",{"name":59,"value":60},"Utility \u002F Laundry Room","13",{"name":62,"value":63},"Pantry","14",{"name":65,"value":66},"Basement","15",{"name":68,"value":69},"Garden","16",{"name":71,"value":72},"Balcony","17",{"name":74,"value":11,"add_value":75,"describe":76,"children":77},"Office & Educational","workshop","AI is reshaping work and learning. Our datasets capture offices and classrooms to power automation and next-generation productivity tools.",[78,81,84,87,90,93,96,99,102,105,108,111,114,117,120,123,126,129,132],{"name":79,"value":80},"Open Office","18",{"name":82,"value":83},"Private Office","19",{"name":85,"value":86},"Co-working Space","20",{"name":88,"value":89},"Reception \u002F Lobby","21",{"name":91,"value":92},"Conference Room","22",{"name":94,"value":95},"Huddle Room \u002F Booth","23",{"name":97,"value":98},"Lecture Hall \u002F Auditorium","24",{"name":100,"value":101},"Classroom","25",{"name":103,"value":104},"Science Laboratory","26",{"name":106,"value":107},"Library","27",{"name":109,"value":110},"Design Studio","28",{"name":112,"value":113},"Pantry \u002F Breakroom","29",{"name":115,"value":116},"Cafeteria \u002F Canteen","30",{"name":118,"value":119},"Restroom (Commercial)","31",{"name":121,"value":122},"Gymnasium \u002F Sports Hall","32",{"name":124,"value":125},"Server Room","33",{"name":127,"value":128},"Mailroom \u002F Logistics","34",{"name":130,"value":131},"Janitorial Closet","35",{"name":133,"value":134},"Corridor \u002F Elevators","36",{"name":136,"value":14,"add_value":137,"describe":138,"children":139},"Healthcare & Medical","love-and-help","AI is advancing modern healthcare. Our datasets include clinics and hospitals to enable clinical insights and medical automation.",[140,143,146,149,152,155,158,161,164,167,170,173,176,179,182,185,188,191,194],{"name":141,"value":142},"Operating Theatre \u002F OR","37",{"name":144,"value":145},"Consultation Room","38",{"name":147,"value":148},"Treatment Room","39",{"name":150,"value":151},"Dental Clinic","40",{"name":153,"value":154},"Inpatient Ward","41",{"name":156,"value":157},"Nurse Station","42",{"name":159,"value":160},"ICU","43",{"name":162,"value":163},"NICU (Neonatal ICU)","44",{"name":165,"value":166},"Emergency Room (ER)","45",{"name":168,"value":169},"Hospital Corridor","46",{"name":171,"value":172},"Waiting Area","47",{"name":174,"value":175},"CT\u002FMRI","48",{"name":177,"value":178},"Medical Laboratory","49",{"name":180,"value":181},"Phlebotomy Room","50",{"name":183,"value":184},"Rehabilitation Gym","51",{"name":186,"value":187},"Assisted Living Room","52",{"name":189,"value":190},"Pharmacy","53",{"name":192,"value":193},"Sterile Processing Dept","54",{"name":195,"value":196},"Medical Storage","55",{"name":198,"value":17,"add_value":199,"describe":200,"children":201},"Business & Public Service","business","AI is elevating commercial and public services. Our datasets span retail, dining, and service centers to improve intelligent operations.",[202,205,208,211,214,217,220,223,226,229],{"name":203,"value":204},"Shopping Mall Atrium","86",{"name":206,"value":207},"Supermarket Shelf","87",{"name":209,"value":210},"Self-Checkout Counter","88",{"name":212,"value":213},"Restaurant Dining Hall","89",{"name":215,"value":216},"Commercial Kitchen","90",{"name":218,"value":219},"Hotel Lobby","91",{"name":221,"value":222},"Subway Platform","92",{"name":224,"value":225},"Security Checkpoint","93",{"name":227,"value":228},"Underground Parking","94",{"name":230,"value":231},"Bank Teller Zone","95",{"name":233,"value":20,"add_value":234,"describe":235,"children":236},"Industrial & Manufacturing","robot-arm","AI is modernizing industry. Our datasets capture factories and logistics spaces to support robotics and intelligent manufacturing.",[237,240,243,246,249,252,255,258,261,264],{"name":238,"value":239},"Final Assembly Line","96",{"name":241,"value":242},"Quality Control Station","97",{"name":244,"value":245},"Robotic Welding Cell","98",{"name":247,"value":248},"CNC Machining Center","99",{"name":250,"value":251},"Cleanroom","100",{"name":253,"value":254},"Automated Warehouse","101",{"name":256,"value":257},"Loading Dock","102",{"name":259,"value":260},"Sorting Center","103",{"name":262,"value":263},"Chemical Plant","104",{"name":265,"value":266},"Power Substation","105",{"name":268,"value":39,"add_value":269,"describe":270,"children":271},"Transportation & Driving","car","AI is revolutionizing mobility. Our datasets capture road networks, vehicle dynamics and traffic scenarios to support autonomous driving and intelligent transportation systems.",[272,275,278,281,284,287,290,293,296,299],{"name":273,"value":274},"Urban Intersection","56",{"name":276,"value":277},"Highway \u002F Expressway","57",{"name":279,"value":280},"Tunnel","58",{"name":282,"value":283},"Roundabout","59",{"name":285,"value":286},"School \u002F Hospital Zone","60",{"name":288,"value":289},"Toll Station","61",{"name":291,"value":292},"Construction Zone","62",{"name":294,"value":295},"Parking Garage","63",{"name":297,"value":298},"Driver Cabin","64",{"name":300,"value":301},"Adverse Weather","65",{"name":303,"value":42,"add_value":304,"describe":305,"children":306},"Outdoor & Construction","tent-tree","AI is optimizing outdoor operations. Our datasets capture construction sites, open-air work zones and outdoor infrastructure to support smart construction and autonomous outdoor machinery.",[307,310,313,316,319,322,325,328,331,334],{"name":308,"value":309},"Excavation Site","66",{"name":311,"value":312},"Scaffolding Area","67",{"name":314,"value":315},"Material Storage Yard","68",{"name":317,"value":318},"Site Entrance","69",{"name":320,"value":321},"Roadwork Zone","70",{"name":323,"value":324},"Bridge Infrastructure","71",{"name":326,"value":327},"Transmission Line","72",{"name":329,"value":330},"Open-pit Mine","73",{"name":332,"value":333},"Tunneling Site","74",{"name":335,"value":336},"Post-Disaster Rubble","75",{"name":338,"value":45,"add_value":339,"describe":340,"children":341},"Nature, Aerial & Aquatic","global-loop","AI is exploring the natural world. Our datasets capture terrestrial landscapes, aerial vistas and aquatic ecosystems to support environmental monitoring and autonomous exploration systems.",[342,345,348,351,354,357,360,363,366,369],{"name":343,"value":344},"Deep Forest","76",{"name":346,"value":347},"Farmland \u002F Crops","77",{"name":349,"value":350},"River \u002F Lake","78",{"name":352,"value":353},"Open Ocean","79",{"name":355,"value":356},"Underwater Coral Reef","80",{"name":358,"value":359},"Fish Farm","81",{"name":361,"value":362},"Mountain Terrain","82",{"name":364,"value":365},"Urban Low Altitude","83",{"name":367,"value":368},"Fire Scene","84",{"name":370,"value":371},"Desert \u002F Gobi","85",{"name":373,"value":48,"add_value":374,"describe":375,"children":376},"Virtul & Digital","siri","AI is reshaping the virtual realm. Our datasets capture digital twins, virtual environments and simulated spaces to support metaverse development and intelligent digital interaction.",[377,380,383,386,389,392,395,398,401,404],{"name":378,"value":379},"VR Social Space","106",{"name":381,"value":382},"Synthetic Driving Sim","107",{"name":384,"value":385},"Digital Twin City","108",{"name":387,"value":388},"FPS \u002F MOBA Game","109",{"name":390,"value":391},"Robotics Gym","110",{"name":393,"value":394},"AR Navigation","111",{"name":396,"value":397},"Virtual Showroom","112",{"name":399,"value":400},"Code \u002F IDE Interface","113",{"name":402,"value":403},"App GUI Screen","114",{"name":405,"value":406},"Synthetic Face\u002FID","115",[408,411,414,417,420,423,426,429,432,435,438],{"name":409,"value":7,"add_value":410,"describe":8},"Classification","rubric",{"name":412,"value":11,"add_value":413,"describe":8},"Detection","radar",{"name":415,"value":14,"add_value":416,"describe":8},"Segmentation","segmentation",{"name":418,"value":17,"add_value":419,"describe":8},"Tacking","crosshairs",{"name":421,"value":20,"add_value":422,"describe":8},"Estimation","streamline",{"name":424,"value":39,"add_value":425,"describe":8},"QA","qa",{"name":427,"value":42,"add_value":428,"describe":8},"Recognition","finger-scan",{"name":430,"value":45,"add_value":431,"describe":8},"Control","control",{"name":433,"value":48,"add_value":434,"describe":8},"Extraction","extraction",{"name":436,"value":51,"add_value":437,"describe":8},"Retrieval","retrieval",{"name":439,"value":54,"add_value":440,"describe":8},"Forecast","forecast",[442,445,448,451,454,457,460,463,466,469,472,475],{"name":443,"value":7,"add_value":444,"describe":8},"Audio","audio",{"name":446,"value":11,"add_value":447,"describe":8},"Image","image",{"name":449,"value":14,"add_value":450,"describe":8},"Text","text",{"name":452,"value":17,"add_value":453,"describe":8},"Video","video",{"name":455,"value":20,"add_value":456,"describe":8},"Multi","multi",{"name":458,"value":39,"add_value":459,"describe":8},"Document","document",{"name":461,"value":42,"add_value":462,"describe":8},"Time-Series","time-series",{"name":464,"value":45,"add_value":465,"describe":8},"3D cloud","cloud",{"name":467,"value":48,"add_value":468,"describe":8},"Code","code",{"name":470,"value":51,"add_value":471,"describe":8},"Event","event",{"name":473,"value":54,"add_value":474,"describe":8},"Motion","motion",{"name":476,"value":57,"add_value":477,"describe":8},"Interaction","interaction",[479,482,487,491,494,499,504,509,514,519,524,528,532,536,540,544,548,552,556,559],{"id":480,"value":480,"name":233,"intro":481,"add_value":234,"describe":481},2,"智能质检：利用图像识别、多模态模型对产品外观或声音、振动等数据进行分析，自动识别缺陷，提高质量控制效率。\n工业知识问答与文档理解：通过大模型理解和总结技术文档、操作手册，实现快速问答、知识检索和培训支持。\n安全监测与风险预警：实时分析视频、传感器和操作日志，识别潜在危险行为或异常状态，提前预警，保障人员和设备安全。",{"id":483,"value":483,"name":484,"intro":485,"add_value":486,"describe":485},3,"Finance & Insurance","风险评估与预测：分析大量客户数据，评估信用风险、市场风险等，预测违约概率、股价走势等，辅助金融机构决策。\n智能投顾：根据客户风险偏好、资产状况等，提供个性化投资组合建议，实时调整投资策略。\n反欺诈检测：通过分析交易数据、用户行为，识别异常交易和欺诈行为，保障金融安全。","funds",{"id":488,"value":488,"name":489,"intro":490,"add_value":269,"describe":490},1,"Transport & Automotive","智能座舱：打造多模态交互的 AI 座舱，通过语音、手势、面部识别等实现人机交互，如语音控制导航、音乐播放。\n驾驶员状态监测：识别疲劳、分心、抽烟、打电话等行为，通过大模型判断危险等级，触发相应提醒或干预机制。\n智能驾驶：AI 用于环境感知、路径规划与决策控制，使车辆能识别道路、行人、障碍物等，实现自适应巡航、自动泊车、车道保持等功能，提升驾驶安全性与便利性。",{"id":492,"value":492,"name":136,"intro":493,"add_value":137,"describe":493},4,"医学影像诊断：分析 CT、MRI 等影像，辅助医生检测疾病、识别病灶，如 AI 系统可快速发现肺部结节。\n医患对话助手：通过自然语言处理理解患者问题，提供初步健康建议或就诊指导，缓解医生接诊压力。\n智能健康管理：根据用户健康数据，提供个性化健康建议、疾病预警，如智能手环结合 AI 分析用户运动、睡眠、心率等数据。",{"id":495,"value":495,"name":496,"intro":497,"add_value":498,"describe":497},6,"Smart Devices","多模态交互：支持语音、手势、眼神等多种交互方式，如 AI 眼镜可通过语音指令实现翻译、搜索功能。\n智能感知与处理：使设备能感知环境、理解用户需求，如智能音箱根据环境噪音自动调节音量。\n个性化服务：根据用户使用习惯和偏好，提供个性化功能与服务，如智能手表为用户定制运动健身计划。","microscope",{"id":500,"value":500,"name":501,"intro":502,"add_value":503,"describe":502},8,"Law & Government","智能法律问答：面向公众或企业用户，提供合规、劳动法、婚姻继承、知识产权等常见法律问题的智能解答。\n合同审查与风险识别：利用大模型分析合同内容，识别潜在风险条款、漏洞或不合理约定，提升合同审核质量。\n法律知识图谱构建：自动梳理法规、案例、条文之间的引用关系，构建语义化知识图谱，支持智能分析和推理。","hammer",{"id":505,"value":505,"name":506,"intro":507,"add_value":508,"describe":507},7,"Education & Training","个性化学习：根据学生学习进度、能力和知识掌握情况，推送个性化学习内容与练习，如智能辅导系统为学生制定专属学习计划。\n智能教学辅助：AI 助教协助教师进行作业批改、答疑解惑，还可分析教学数据，为教师提供教学反馈，优化教学方法。\n虚拟学习环境：利用 AI 创建虚拟实验、历史场景等，让学生沉浸式学习，如在虚拟化学实验室中进行实验操作。","degree-hat",{"id":510,"value":510,"name":511,"intro":512,"add_value":513,"describe":512},5,"Agriculture & Food","作物病虫害识别与防治：通过图像识别分析农作物叶片、果实等症状，识别病虫害类型，给出防治建议，减少产量损失。\n农产品质量检测：利用图像和传感器数据，识别果蔬等农产品的成熟度、外观缺陷，进行自动分级，提高市场竞争力。\n农情监测与预测：利用卫星遥感、气象和传感器数据，结合大模型预测作物长势、干旱、洪涝等农情变化。","ph-farm",{"id":515,"value":515,"name":516,"intro":517,"add_value":518,"describe":517},9,"Retail & E-commerce","智能客服：通过自然语言对话理解用户需求，提供产品推荐、订单查询、退换货支持等服务，提升客户满意度。\n个性化营销推荐：基于用户浏览、购买、偏好等行为数据，生成个性化推荐内容与优惠策略，提高转化率和客单价。\n商品内容生成：自动撰写商品标题、卖点描述、使用说明等内容，适用于海量SKU的内容生产与多语言发布。","buy",{"id":520,"value":520,"name":521,"intro":522,"add_value":523,"describe":8},10,"Security & Protection",null,"safe-shield-line",{"id":525,"value":525,"name":526,"intro":522,"add_value":527,"describe":8},11,"Environment & Climate","weather",{"id":529,"value":529,"name":530,"intro":522,"add_value":531,"describe":8},12,"Energy & Resource","energy-leaf",{"id":533,"value":533,"name":534,"intro":522,"add_value":535,"describe":8},13,"Express & Logistics","speed-outline",{"id":537,"value":537,"name":538,"intro":522,"add_value":539,"describe":8},15,"Sports","baseball-outline",{"id":541,"value":541,"name":542,"intro":522,"add_value":543,"describe":8},16,"General Data","daily-booth",{"id":545,"value":545,"name":546,"intro":522,"add_value":547,"describe":8},17,"Content & Media","media",{"id":549,"value":549,"name":550,"intro":522,"add_value":551,"describe":8},18,"Construction","construction",{"id":553,"value":553,"name":554,"intro":522,"add_value":555,"describe":8},19,"IT & Telecom","tech",{"id":557,"value":557,"name":558,"intro":522,"add_value":498,"describe":8},20,"Science & Research",{"id":560,"value":560,"name":561,"intro":522,"add_value":562,"describe":8},21,"Language & Culture","lang",{"id":564,"unique_code":565,"title":566,"icon":8,"intro":567,"cate":483,"detail":568,"create_time":569,"update_time":570,"price":571,"view_count":572,"download_count":573,"unit":573,"amount":574,"is_create_order":573,"enterprise_id":488,"seo_keywords":575,"seo_description":576,"data_format":577,"file_size":578,"apply_scene":579,"training_task":580,"version":581,"dataset_type_id":510,"dataset_scene_id":553,"sample_file":582,"banner":8,"unit_name":8,"cate_name":449,"icon_url":8,"banner_url":8,"sample_file_url":8,"data_dict":583,"qa_list":646,"sample_metadatas":663,"text_sample_content":713,"enterprise_name":714,"enterprise_logo":715,"data_distribution":716},1210,"88357345bced66cdc5f0c18a7ad826b9","Messaging Platform Security and Authorization Codebase Dataset","Train coding agents to analyze messaging platform security code, trace authorization paths, locate flaws, and plan fixes.","\u003Cp>This dataset brings together source code for authentication, authorization, access control, tenant isolation, transport security, and management API permission checks in distributed messaging and event streaming platforms, accompanied by task context. It covers security call-chain analysis, permission flaw localization, and implementation change planning. The data helps coding agents understand security modules, policy propagation, and code dependencies for security analysis and remediation training.\u003C\u002Fp>","2026-10-14 16:39:24","2026-10-19 17:20:22","0.00",22,0,5000,"messaging platform security code,authorization codebase dataset,access control code,security call-chain analysis,permission flaw localization,multi-tenant isolation,management API permission checks,coding agent training","Security and authorization code for distributed messaging and event streaming platforms, with call-chain analysis, flaw localization, and code change tasks for","JSON","0.4GB","messaging platform security analysis, authorization path tracing, code vulnerability remediation","code understanding, vulnerability detection, logical reasoning","V1.0","rivo\u002Fsample-packages\u002F622f0f91-310d-4edf-80ff-55cafe0761a4\u002F20261014.zip",[584,589,594,600,606,611,616,621,626,631,636,641],{"id":573,"name":585,"field":586,"intro":587,"type":588},"File Name","file_name","File name","string",{"id":590,"name":591,"field":592,"intro":593,"type":588},8791,"Source Code","source_code","Source code text related to security or authorization in a messaging platform.",{"id":595,"name":596,"field":597,"intro":598,"type":599},8792,"Task Context","task_context","Describes the security analysis, permission flaw localization, or implementation change task associated with the source code.","object",{"id":601,"name":602,"field":603,"intro":604,"type":605},8793,"Security Domains","security_domains","Security functional areas identified in the source code.","array",{"id":607,"name":608,"field":609,"intro":610,"type":588},8794,"Security Analysis Summary","security_summary","Overall summary of the source code's security capabilities, primary risks, and completeness of permission controls.",{"id":612,"name":613,"field":614,"intro":615,"type":588},8795,"Detected Programming Language","detected_language","Programming language inferred from source syntax, file characteristics, or task context.",{"id":617,"name":618,"field":619,"intro":620,"type":599},8796,"Security Call Chain","security_call_chain","Extracted call nodes, call relationships, and policy propagation details between an entry point and security policy enforcement.",{"id":622,"name":623,"field":624,"intro":625,"type":605},8797,"Authorization and Permission Findings","authorization_findings","Authentication, authorization, access control, or management API permission check issues identified in the code.",{"id":627,"name":628,"field":629,"intro":630,"type":605},8798,"Management API Permission Checks","admin_permission_checks","Permission check information extracted for management APIs, operations interfaces, or high-risk actions.",{"id":632,"name":633,"field":634,"intro":635,"type":599},8799,"Tenant Isolation Analysis","tenant_isolation_analysis","Analysis of how tenant identity and context propagate through the code and how cross-tenant access boundaries are validated.",{"id":637,"name":638,"field":639,"intro":640,"type":588},8800,"Implementation Change Plan","implementation_change_plan","Code change steps, impact scope, and validation recommendations derived from security call-chain and flaw analysis.",{"id":642,"name":643,"field":644,"intro":645,"type":605},8801,"Transport Security Controls","transport_security_controls","Code controls related to encrypted transport, TLS, certificate validation, or secure protocol configuration.",[647,651,655,659],{"id":648,"question":649,"answer":650},6291,"Which security topics does the dataset cover?","It covers authentication, authorization, access control, tenant isolation, transport security, and management API permission checks, with related call-chain, flaw analysis, and implementation change tasks.",{"id":652,"question":653,"answer":654},6292,"What capabilities can this dataset support?","It can support coding agent training for codebase understanding, security call-chain tracing, authorization flaw localization, tenant boundary analysis, and code change planning.",{"id":656,"question":657,"answer":658},6293,"What fields and quality information are included?","Fields include source code, task context, detected programming language, security domains, call chains, findings, tenant isolation analysis, transport security controls, and change plans. Confirm sample coverage and quality details against the actual dataset documentation.",{"id":660,"question":661,"answer":662},6294,"How can I obtain the dataset, and what are the licensing terms?","Use the dataset product page or the delivery channel provided by the platform. Before use, review the published license scope, access method, and restrictions; no specific license terms are provided here.",[664,683,698],{"id":665,"relate_table":666,"relate_id":667,"file_size":573,"file_name":668,"path":8,"duration":573,"cate":483,"file_format":669,"audio_rate":8,"audio_channel":522,"audio_bit_depth":522,"quality":8,"annotation":670,"cate_name":671,"source_code":672,"task_context":673,"security_domains":674,"security_summary":675,"detected_language":676,"security_call_chain":677,"authorization_findings":678,"admin_permission_checks":679,"tenant_isolation_analysis":680,"implementation_change_plan":681,"transport_security_controls":682},15030,"union_cubo",1709397391,"样例_3.json","json","{\"source_code\": \"from dataclasses import dataclass\\nfrom fastapi import APIRouter, Header, HTTPException\\nfrom app.auth import decode_access_token\\nfrom app.events import event_store\\nfrom app.policy import authorize\\nfrom app.queue import tasks\\nfrom app.publisher import publisher\\n\\nrouter = APIRouter()\\n\\n@dataclass\\nclass SecurityContext:\\n    subject: str\\n    tenant_id: str\\n    scopes: set[str]\\n\\ndef build_context(authorization: str) -> SecurityContext:\\n    if not authorization.startswith('Bearer '):\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='missing bearer token')\\n    claims = decode_access_token(authorization[7:])\\n    if claims is None:\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='invalid token')\\n    return SecurityContext(\\n        subject=claims['sub'],\\n        tenant_id=claims['tenant_id'],\\n        scopes=set(claims.get('scopes', )),\\n    )\\n\\n@router.post('\u002Fv1\u002Fevents\u002F{event_id}\u002Fretry')\\ndef retry_event(event_id: str, authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict:\\n    ctx = build_context(authorization)\\n    event = event_store.get(event_id)\\n    if event is None or event.tenant_id != ctx.tenant_id:\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=404, detail='event not found')\\n    authorize(ctx, 'events:retry', event.topic)\\n    tasks.enqueue(retry_in_background, event_id)\\n    return {'queued': True}\\n\\ndef retry_in_background(event_id: str) -> None:\\n    event = event_store.get(event_id)\\n    if event is None:\\n        return\\n    publisher.publish(topic=event.topic, payload=event.payload)\\n\\n@router.post('\u002Fadmin\u002Fkeys\u002Frotate')\\ndef rotate_keys(authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict:\\n    ctx = build_context(authorization)\\n    authorize(ctx, 'keys:rotate', 'platform')\\n    event_store.rotate_signing_key()\\n    return {'rotated': True}\", \"task_context\": \"{\\\"task_description\\\": \\\"Analyze the propagation of security policy for event retry requests from the HTTP entry point into the background task, confirm whether authorization context is lost at the asynchronous boundary, and design a modification that will not allow unauthorized republishing.\\\", \\\"target_files\\\": [\\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py\\\", \\\"app\u002Fpolicy.py\\\", \\\"app\u002Fqueue.py\\\", \\\"app\u002Fpublisher.py\\\"], \\\"requested_change\\\": \\\"Make background tasks carry tamper-proof tenant and subject context, or re-verify authorization when the task executes; before publishing, it must reconfirm the events:retry permission and the event tenant ownership, and must not directly publish after looking up only by event_id.\\\"}\", \"security_domains\": \"[\\\"Token authentication\\\", \\\"Event retry authorization\\\", \\\"Asynchronous task security context propagation\\\", \\\"Tenant isolation\\\", \\\"Policy enforcement\\\", \\\"Key management interface permissions\\\"]\", \"security_summary\": \"The code correctly performs identity authentication, same-tenant check, and events:retry authorization at the HTTP entry point, but the asynchronous queue only stores event_id, causing subject, tenant, and policy to be lost at the boundary. The background worker then unconditionally publishes events, creating a serious authorization bypass and potential cross-tenant risk. The key rotation interface uses a unified authorizer, so the overall pattern is good, but the underlying transport security of the publisher still requires separate review.\", \"detected_language\": \"Python\", \"security_call_chain\": \"{\\\"entry_points\\\": [\\\"POST \u002Fv1\u002Fevents\u002F{event_id}\u002Fretry\\\", \\\"retry_in_background\\\", \\\"POST \u002Fadmin\u002Fkeys\u002Frotate\\\"], \\\"nodes\\\": [{\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"retry_event\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"interface handler function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"authenticates request and checks event tenant and retry permission\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"build_context\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"constructs subject, tenant, and scope context from token\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"authorize\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fpolicy.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"policy component\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"determines whether the subject has permission for the target action and resource\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"tasks.enqueue\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fqueue.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"queue method\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"submits retry task to the asynchronous execution boundary\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"retry_in_background\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"background task function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"reads event and republishes it, currently without authorization and tenant validation\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"publisher.publish\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fpublisher.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"publish method\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"writes retry event back to the message platform\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"rotate_keys\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"administrative interface handler function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"checks key rotation permission and performs platform key changes\\\"}], \\\"edges\\\": [{\\\"caller\\\": \\\"retry_event\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"build_context\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"Bearer token converted into tenant_id, subject, and scopes\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"retry_event\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"authorize\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"events:retry policy executed within the HTTP request using the event topic as the resource\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"retry_event\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"tasks.enqueue\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"event triggered\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"only event_id is passed; SecurityContext or signed authorization snapshot is not passed\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"tasks.enqueue\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"retry_in_background\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"asynchronous dispatch\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"subject, tenant, and events:retry policy are lost at the asynchronous boundary\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"retry_in_background\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"publisher.publish\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"only event topic and payload are passed; no tenant or permission policy\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"rotate_keys\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"authorize\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"keys:rotate permission bound to platform resource\\\"}]}\", \"authorization_findings\": \"[{\\\"finding_type\\\": \\\"Policy propagation loss in asynchronous task\\\", \\\"severity\\\": \\\"Critical\\\", \\\"location\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py: retry_event and retry_in_background\\\", \\\"evidence\\\": \\\"In retry_event, authorize(ctx, 'events:retry', event.topic) is executed first, but afterward only tasks.enqueue(retry_in_background, event_id) is called. retry_in_background directly calls publisher.publish after event_store.get(event_id), without receiving or reconstructing SecurityContext.\\\", \\\"impact\\\": \\\"As long as the queue caller can make a task carry a valid event_id, the background execution path may bypass the events:retry authorization at the entry point; if event identifiers can be predicted, replayed, or abused by trusted internal components, this may lead to unauthorized event republishing and cross-tenant message spread.\\\", \\\"recommended_fix\\\": \\\"The task message should include protected tenant_id, subject, event_id, and authorization version, and the worker should reload the event and perform tenant ownership and events:retry checks; a safer approach is for the worker to use a service identity to call the unified policy engine while including the original request subject as an audit field.\\\"}, {\\\"finding_type\\\": \\\"Background publishing missing tenant boundary validation\\\", \\\"severity\\\": \\\"High\\\", \\\"location\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py: retry_in_background\\\", \\\"evidence\\\": \\\"def retry_in_background(event_id: str) -> None: event = event_store.get(event_id); if event is None: return; publisher.publish(topic=event.topic, payload=event.payload)\\\", \\\"impact\\\": \\\"The background function does not verify whether the task subject tenant matches the event tenant_id, nor does it pass tenant context to publisher; a misrouted or tampered task may republish events from other tenants.\\\", \\\"recommended_fix\\\": \\\"Add tenant_id to the task payload and use an identity comparison in the worker to verify event.tenant_id; publisher.publish should also require an explicit tenant_id and reject calls missing it or with a mismatch.\\\"}]\", \"admin_permission_checks\": \"[{\\\"endpoint\\\": \\\"POST \u002Fadmin\u002Fkeys\u002Frotate\\\", \\\"required_permission\\\": \\\"keys:rotate, with resource platform\\\", \\\"check_location\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py: rotate_keys\\\", \\\"check_result\\\": \\\"The interface first authenticates through build_context, then calls authorize(ctx, 'keys:rotate', 'platform'); from the current code, the permission check location is correct, but it should ensure that authorize rejects empty scopes, expired tokens, and non-platform resource subjects.\\\"}]\", \"tenant_isolation_analysis\": \"{\\\"isolation_mechanisms\\\": [\\\"HTTP entry point performs same-tenant check based on event.tenant_id and ctx.tenant_id\\\", \\\"Authorizer receives event topic as resource\\\", \\\"Event record contains tenant_id field\\\"], \\\"tenant_context_flow\\\": \\\"retry_event creates SecurityContext from the token, validates the event using tenant_id, and then calls authorize on the synchronous path; when enqueuing, only event_id is passed, so after entering retry_in_background the tenant context no longer exists, and finally publisher.publish also does not receive tenant_id. The key rotation interface uses the platform resource for independent authorization.\\\", \\\"cross_tenant_risks\\\": [\\\"The asynchronous task reads and publishes events based only on event_id, lacking a binding between the task tenant and the event tenant.\\\", \\\"The publisher interface does not require tenant context, allowing callers to bypass isolation at the entry layer.\\\", \\\"If queue messages can be replayed, expired or revoked retry permissions will not be rechecked during background execution.\\\"]}\", \"implementation_change_plan\": \"1. Define a tamper-proof RetryTask including event_id, tenant_id, subject, authorization version, and expiration time, and have the queue producer sign it or use a protected task channel. 2. In retry_in_background, after reloading the event, verify that the task tenant_id matches event.tenant_id. 3. When the worker executes, re-call the policy engine to check events:retry, handling permission revocation and policy changes. 4. Change publisher.publish to require tenant_id as a mandatory parameter and revalidate the topic tenant prefix inside the publisher. 5. Add tests for task replay, permission revocation, cross-tenant event_id, tenant mismatch, and invalid signature.\", \"transport_security_controls\": \"[{\\\"control_type\\\": \\\"Message publishing link encryption\\\", \\\"location\\\": \\\"The implementation of app\u002Fpublisher.py: publisher.publish is not included in the snippet\\\", \\\"implementation_status\\\": \\\"Cannot be confirmed from the current code\\\", \\\"evidence\\\": \\\"The current snippet only shows the call to publisher.publish, not its TLS, certificate verification, or security protocol configuration; further review should be performed in publisher initialization and connection configuration.\\\"}]\"}","文本","from dataclasses import dataclass\nfrom fastapi import APIRouter, Header, HTTPException\nfrom app.auth import decode_access_token\nfrom app.events import event_store\nfrom app.policy import authorize\nfrom app.queue import tasks\nfrom app.publisher import publisher\n\nrouter = APIRouter()\n\n@dataclass\nclass SecurityContext:\n    subject: str\n    tenant_id: str\n    scopes: set[str]\n\ndef build_context(authorization: str) -> SecurityContext:\n    if not authorization.startswith('Bearer '):\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='missing bearer token')\n    claims = decode_access_token(authorization[7:])\n    if claims is None:\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='invalid token')\n    return SecurityContext(\n        subject=claims['sub'],\n        tenant_id=claims['tenant_id'],\n        scopes=set(claims.get('scopes', )),\n    )\n\n@router.post('\u002Fv1\u002Fevents\u002F{event_id}\u002Fretry')\ndef retry_event(event_id: str, authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict:\n    ctx = build_context(authorization)\n    event = event_store.get(event_id)\n    if event is None or event.tenant_id != ctx.tenant_id:\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=404, detail='event not found')\n    authorize(ctx, 'events:retry', event.topic)\n    tasks.enqueue(retry_in_background, event_id)\n    return {'queued': True}\n\ndef retry_in_background(event_id: str) -> None:\n    event = event_store.get(event_id)\n    if event is None:\n        return\n    publisher.publish(topic=event.topic, payload=event.payload)\n\n@router.post('\u002Fadmin\u002Fkeys\u002Frotate')\ndef rotate_keys(authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict:\n    ctx = build_context(authorization)\n    authorize(ctx, 'keys:rotate', 'platform')\n    event_store.rotate_signing_key()\n    return {'rotated': True}","{\"task_description\": \"Analyze the propagation of security policy for event retry requests from the HTTP entry point into the background task, confirm whether authorization context is lost at the asynchronous boundary, and design a modification that will not allow unauthorized republishing.\", \"target_files\": [\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py\", \"app\u002Fpolicy.py\", \"app\u002Fqueue.py\", \"app\u002Fpublisher.py\"], \"requested_change\": \"Make background tasks carry tamper-proof tenant and subject context, or re-verify authorization when the task executes; before publishing, it must reconfirm the events:retry permission and the event tenant ownership, and must not directly publish after looking up only by event_id.\"}","[\"Token authentication\", \"Event retry authorization\", \"Asynchronous task security context propagation\", \"Tenant isolation\", \"Policy enforcement\", \"Key management interface permissions\"]","The code correctly performs identity authentication, same-tenant check, and events:retry authorization at the HTTP entry point, but the asynchronous queue only stores event_id, causing subject, tenant, and policy to be lost at the boundary. The background worker then unconditionally publishes events, creating a serious authorization bypass and potential cross-tenant risk. The key rotation interface uses a unified authorizer, so the overall pattern is good, but the underlying transport security of the publisher still requires separate review.","Python","{\"entry_points\": [\"POST \u002Fv1\u002Fevents\u002F{event_id}\u002Fretry\", \"retry_in_background\", \"POST \u002Fadmin\u002Fkeys\u002Frotate\"], \"nodes\": [{\"symbol_name\": \"retry_event\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py\", \"node_type\": \"interface handler function\", \"security_role\": \"authenticates request and checks event tenant and retry permission\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"build_context\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py\", \"node_type\": \"function\", \"security_role\": \"constructs subject, tenant, and scope context from token\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"authorize\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fpolicy.py\", \"node_type\": \"policy component\", \"security_role\": \"determines whether the subject has permission for the target action and resource\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"tasks.enqueue\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fqueue.py\", \"node_type\": \"queue method\", \"security_role\": \"submits retry task to the asynchronous execution boundary\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"retry_in_background\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py\", \"node_type\": \"background task function\", \"security_role\": \"reads event and republishes it, currently without authorization and tenant validation\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"publisher.publish\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fpublisher.py\", \"node_type\": \"publish method\", \"security_role\": \"writes retry event back to the message platform\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"rotate_keys\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py\", \"node_type\": \"administrative interface handler function\", \"security_role\": \"checks key rotation permission and performs platform key changes\"}], \"edges\": [{\"caller\": \"retry_event\", \"callee\": \"build_context\", \"relation\": \"direct call\", \"propagated_policy\": \"Bearer token converted into tenant_id, subject, and scopes\"}, {\"caller\": \"retry_event\", \"callee\": \"authorize\", \"relation\": \"direct call\", \"propagated_policy\": \"events:retry policy executed within the HTTP request using the event topic as the resource\"}, {\"caller\": \"retry_event\", \"callee\": \"tasks.enqueue\", \"relation\": \"event triggered\", \"propagated_policy\": \"only event_id is passed; SecurityContext or signed authorization snapshot is not passed\"}, {\"caller\": \"tasks.enqueue\", \"callee\": \"retry_in_background\", \"relation\": \"asynchronous dispatch\", \"propagated_policy\": \"subject, tenant, and events:retry policy are lost at the asynchronous boundary\"}, {\"caller\": \"retry_in_background\", \"callee\": \"publisher.publish\", \"relation\": \"direct call\", \"propagated_policy\": \"only event topic and payload are passed; no tenant or permission policy\"}, {\"caller\": \"rotate_keys\", \"callee\": \"authorize\", \"relation\": \"direct call\", \"propagated_policy\": \"keys:rotate permission bound to platform resource\"}]}","[{\"finding_type\": \"Policy propagation loss in asynchronous task\", \"severity\": \"Critical\", \"location\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py: retry_event and retry_in_background\", \"evidence\": \"In retry_event, authorize(ctx, 'events:retry', event.topic) is executed first, but afterward only tasks.enqueue(retry_in_background, event_id) is called. retry_in_background directly calls publisher.publish after event_store.get(event_id), without receiving or reconstructing SecurityContext.\", \"impact\": \"As long as the queue caller can make a task carry a valid event_id, the background execution path may bypass the events:retry authorization at the entry point; if event identifiers can be predicted, replayed, or abused by trusted internal components, this may lead to unauthorized event republishing and cross-tenant message spread.\", \"recommended_fix\": \"The task message should include protected tenant_id, subject, event_id, and authorization version, and the worker should reload the event and perform tenant ownership and events:retry checks; a safer approach is for the worker to use a service identity to call the unified policy engine while including the original request subject as an audit field.\"}, {\"finding_type\": \"Background publishing missing tenant boundary validation\", \"severity\": \"High\", \"location\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py: retry_in_background\", \"evidence\": \"def retry_in_background(event_id: str) -> None: event = event_store.get(event_id); if event is None: return; publisher.publish(topic=event.topic, payload=event.payload)\", \"impact\": \"The background function does not verify whether the task subject tenant matches the event tenant_id, nor does it pass tenant context to publisher; a misrouted or tampered task may republish events from other tenants.\", \"recommended_fix\": \"Add tenant_id to the task payload and use an identity comparison in the worker to verify event.tenant_id; publisher.publish should also require an explicit tenant_id and reject calls missing it or with a mismatch.\"}]","[{\"endpoint\": \"POST \u002Fadmin\u002Fkeys\u002Frotate\", \"required_permission\": \"keys:rotate, with resource platform\", \"check_location\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fretry.py: rotate_keys\", \"check_result\": \"The interface first authenticates through build_context, then calls authorize(ctx, 'keys:rotate', 'platform'); from the current code, the permission check location is correct, but it should ensure that authorize rejects empty scopes, expired tokens, and non-platform resource subjects.\"}]","{\"isolation_mechanisms\": [\"HTTP entry point performs same-tenant check based on event.tenant_id and ctx.tenant_id\", \"Authorizer receives event topic as resource\", \"Event record contains tenant_id field\"], \"tenant_context_flow\": \"retry_event creates SecurityContext from the token, validates the event using tenant_id, and then calls authorize on the synchronous path; when enqueuing, only event_id is passed, so after entering retry_in_background the tenant context no longer exists, and finally publisher.publish also does not receive tenant_id. The key rotation interface uses the platform resource for independent authorization.\", \"cross_tenant_risks\": [\"The asynchronous task reads and publishes events based only on event_id, lacking a binding between the task tenant and the event tenant.\", \"The publisher interface does not require tenant context, allowing callers to bypass isolation at the entry layer.\", \"If queue messages can be replayed, expired or revoked retry permissions will not be rechecked during background execution.\"]}","1. Define a tamper-proof RetryTask including event_id, tenant_id, subject, authorization version, and expiration time, and have the queue producer sign it or use a protected task channel. 2. In retry_in_background, after reloading the event, verify that the task tenant_id matches event.tenant_id. 3. When the worker executes, re-call the policy engine to check events:retry, handling permission revocation and policy changes. 4. Change publisher.publish to require tenant_id as a mandatory parameter and revalidate the topic tenant prefix inside the publisher. 5. Add tests for task replay, permission revocation, cross-tenant event_id, tenant mismatch, and invalid signature.","[{\"control_type\": \"Message publishing link encryption\", \"location\": \"The implementation of app\u002Fpublisher.py: publisher.publish is not included in the snippet\", \"implementation_status\": \"Cannot be confirmed from the current code\", \"evidence\": \"The current snippet only shows the call to publisher.publish, not its TLS, certificate verification, or security protocol configuration; further review should be performed in publisher initialization and connection configuration.\"}]",{"id":684,"relate_table":666,"relate_id":685,"file_size":573,"file_name":686,"path":8,"duration":573,"cate":483,"file_format":669,"audio_rate":8,"audio_channel":522,"audio_bit_depth":522,"quality":8,"annotation":687,"cate_name":671,"source_code":688,"task_context":689,"security_domains":690,"security_summary":691,"detected_language":676,"security_call_chain":692,"authorization_findings":693,"admin_permission_checks":694,"tenant_isolation_analysis":695,"implementation_change_plan":696,"transport_security_controls":697},15029,132441078,"样例_2.json","{\"source_code\": \"import ssl\\nfrom fastapi import APIRouter, Header, HTTPException\\nfrom app.auth import decode_access_token\\nfrom app.broker import BrokerClient\\n\\nrouter = APIRouter()\\n\\nclass BrokerTLSConfig:\\n    def build_context(self) -> ssl.SSLContext:\\n        context = ssl.create_default_context()\\n        context.minimum_version = ssl.TLSVersion.TLSv1_2\\n        context.check_hostname = False\\n        context.verify_mode = ssl.CERT_NONE\\n        return context\\n\\n    def connect(self, host: str, port: int) -> BrokerClient:\\n        return BrokerClient(host=host, port=port, ssl_context=self.build_context())\\n\\nclient = BrokerTLSConfig().connect('broker.internal', 9093)\\n\\n@router.delete('\u002Fadmin\u002Ftopics\u002F{topic}')\\ndef delete_topic(topic: str, authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict:\\n    token = decode_access_token(authorization.removeprefix('Bearer '))\\n    if token is None:\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='invalid token')\\n    client.delete_topic(topic)\\n    return {'deleted': topic}\\n\\n@router.get('\u002Fv1\u002Ftopics\u002F{topic}\u002Fmetadata')\\ndef topic_metadata(topic: str, authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict:\\n    token = decode_access_token(authorization.removeprefix('Bearer '))\\n    if token is None:\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='invalid token')\\n    if not topic.startswith(f\\\"{token['tenant_id']}.\\\"):\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail='tenant mismatch')\\n    return client.metadata(topic)\", \"task_context\": \"{\\\"task_description\\\": \\\"Inspect the TLS configuration of the message broker client and the delete topic administrative interface, locate issues in certificate verification and authorization for high-risk administrative operations, and provide minimal security fixes.\\\", \\\"target_files\\\": [\\\"app\u002Fbroker_client.py\\\", \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fadmin_topics.py\\\", \\\"app\u002Fauth.py\\\"], \\\"requested_change\\\": \\\"Enable hostname and certificate chain verification, restrict to TLS 1.2 or higher; the delete topic interface must require platform_admin or topics:delete permission, and bind the target tenant before and after authorization.\\\"}\", \"security_domains\": \"[\\\"Transport security\\\", \\\"TLS certificate verification\\\", \\\"Bearer token authentication\\\", \\\"Administrative interface authorization\\\", \\\"Tenant isolation\\\"]\", \"security_summary\": \"The code has basic restrictions on TLS version, but explicitly disables certificate and hostname verification, resulting in insufficient transport security. Topic metadata reading has a tenant prefix check, whereas the delete topic administrative interface only has authentication without authorization and tenant binding, constituting a serious exposure of high-risk administrative operations.\", \"detected_language\": \"Python\", \"security_call_chain\": \"{\\\"entry_points\\\": [\\\"BrokerTLSConfig.connect\\\", \\\"DELETE \u002Fadmin\u002Ftopics\u002F{topic}\\\", \\\"GET \u002Fv1\u002Ftopics\u002F{topic}\u002Fmetadata\\\"], \\\"nodes\\\": [{\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"BrokerTLSConfig.build_context\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fbroker_client.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"method\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"creates message broker TLS context\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"BrokerTLSConfig.connect\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fbroker_client.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"method\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"establishes broker client using TLS context\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"delete_topic\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fadmin_topics.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"interface handler function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"executes delete topic administrative operation after authentication\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"topic_metadata\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fadmin_topics.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"interface handler function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"reads metadata after authentication and tenant topic boundary validation\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"client.delete_topic\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fbroker_client.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"client method\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"sends delete topic request to broker\\\"}], \\\"edges\\\": [{\\\"caller\\\": \\\"BrokerTLSConfig.connect\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"BrokerTLSConfig.build_context\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"TLS minimum version and certificate verification configuration are passed to BrokerClient\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"delete_topic\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"decode_access_token\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"Bearer token identity enters the administrative request, but permissions or tenant constraints are not parsed\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"delete_topic\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"client.delete_topic\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"only the topic parameter without resource authorization is propagated\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"topic_metadata\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"decode_access_token\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"tenant_id in token is used for topic prefix validation\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"topic_metadata\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"client.metadata\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"tenant topic that passed prefix check enters broker read operation\\\"}]}\", \"authorization_findings\": \"[{\\\"finding_type\\\": \\\"Administrative interface missing high-risk operation permission check\\\", \\\"severity\\\": \\\"Critical\\\", \\\"location\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fadmin_topics.py: delete_topic\\\", \\\"evidence\\\": \\\"def delete_topic(topic: str, authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict: token = decode_access_token(authorization.removeprefix('Bearer ')); if token is None: raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='invalid token'); client.delete_topic(topic)\\\", \\\"impact\\\": \\\"Any subject able to obtain a valid token may delete any topic. This operation can cause cross-tenant message loss, service disruption, and irreversible data destruction.\\\", \\\"recommended_fix\\\": \\\"Before client.delete_topic, call a unified authorizer requiring platform_admin or topics:delete, and verify that the tenant_id in the token matches the tenant owning the target topic; cross-tenant deletion should use a separate platform_topics:delete permission and record audit events.\\\"}, {\\\"finding_type\\\": \\\"Tenant boundary not propagated to delete operation\\\", \\\"severity\\\": \\\"High\\\", \\\"location\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fadmin_topics.py: delete_topic\\\", \\\"evidence\\\": \\\"delete_topic only checks whether the return value of decode_access_token is empty; it does not read token['tenant_id'] or check the topic's tenant prefix.\\\", \\\"impact\\\": \\\"Even if a generic delete permission is added, an ordinary tenant subject with that permission could replace the topic path with another tenant's topic, causing cross-tenant deletion.\\\", \\\"recommended_fix\\\": \\\"Parse the tenant owning the topic and compare it at resource level with the token tenant_id; pass the target tenant as an authorizer input instead of relying only on URL or string parameters.\\\"}]\", \"admin_permission_checks\": \"[{\\\"endpoint\\\": \\\"DELETE \u002Fadmin\u002Ftopics\u002F{topic}\\\", \\\"required_permission\\\": \\\"platform_admin or topics:delete; cross-tenant operations require platform_topics:delete\\\", \\\"check_location\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fadmin_topics.py: delete_topic\\\", \\\"check_result\\\": \\\"It only checks whether the token can be parsed, not roles, scopes, the target topic tenant, or operation audit, so the permission check is incomplete.\\\"}]\", \"tenant_isolation_analysis\": \"{\\\"isolation_mechanisms\\\": [\\\"Topic metadata interface uses token tenant_id for prefix validation\\\", \\\"Tenant identifier is embedded in the topic naming convention\\\"], \\\"tenant_context_flow\\\": \\\"topic_metadata reads tenant_id from the token and requires topic to start with that value followed by a period before calling client.metadata. Although delete_topic parses the token, it does not propagate the tenant_id within it to authorization or the broker delete call.\\\", \\\"cross_tenant_risks\\\": [\\\"The delete topic interface does not validate the tenant owning the topic, so the path parameter can be replaced with another tenant's topic.\\\", \\\"The topic naming convention is only used in the metadata read interface and does not form a unified resource boundary at the broker client layer.\\\"]}\", \"implementation_change_plan\": \"1. Change the TLS context to use a trusted CA, keep check_hostname as True, and set verify_mode to ssl.CERT_REQUIRED. 2. Add non-bypassable secure defaults to BrokerClient, rejecting externally supplied CERT_NONE. 3. In delete_topic, parse the tenant owning the topic and call authorize(token, 'topics:delete', resource_tenant). 4. Use explicit permissions and audit events for platform_admin cross-tenant deletion. 5. Add tests for untrusted certificates, hostname mismatch, ordinary members deleting same-tenant topics, cross-tenant deletion, and legitimate administrator deletion.\", \"transport_security_controls\": \"[{\\\"control_type\\\": \\\"TLS protocol version\\\", \\\"location\\\": \\\"app\u002Fbroker_client.py: BrokerTLSConfig.build_context\\\", \\\"implementation_status\\\": \\\"Implemented but still requires configuration audit\\\", \\\"evidence\\\": \\\"context.minimum_version = ssl.TLSVersion.TLSv1_2 restricts the minimum version to TLS 1.2.\\\"}, {\\\"control_type\\\": \\\"Server certificate and hostname verification\\\", \\\"location\\\": \\\"app\u002Fbroker_client.py: BrokerTLSConfig.build_context\\\", \\\"implementation_status\\\": \\\"Weak configuration, to be fixed\\\", \\\"evidence\\\": \\\"context.check_hostname = False; context.verify_mode = ssl.CERT_NONE; This disables hostname and certificate chain verification, making the client vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks.\\\"}]\"}","import ssl\nfrom fastapi import APIRouter, Header, HTTPException\nfrom app.auth import decode_access_token\nfrom app.broker import BrokerClient\n\nrouter = APIRouter()\n\nclass BrokerTLSConfig:\n    def build_context(self) -> ssl.SSLContext:\n        context = ssl.create_default_context()\n        context.minimum_version = ssl.TLSVersion.TLSv1_2\n        context.check_hostname = False\n        context.verify_mode = ssl.CERT_NONE\n        return context\n\n    def connect(self, host: str, port: int) -> BrokerClient:\n        return BrokerClient(host=host, port=port, ssl_context=self.build_context())\n\nclient = BrokerTLSConfig().connect('broker.internal', 9093)\n\n@router.delete('\u002Fadmin\u002Ftopics\u002F{topic}')\ndef delete_topic(topic: str, authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict:\n    token = decode_access_token(authorization.removeprefix('Bearer '))\n    if token is None:\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='invalid token')\n    client.delete_topic(topic)\n    return {'deleted': topic}\n\n@router.get('\u002Fv1\u002Ftopics\u002F{topic}\u002Fmetadata')\ndef topic_metadata(topic: str, authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict:\n    token = decode_access_token(authorization.removeprefix('Bearer '))\n    if token is None:\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='invalid token')\n    if not topic.startswith(f\"{token['tenant_id']}.\"):\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail='tenant mismatch')\n    return client.metadata(topic)","{\"task_description\": \"Inspect the TLS configuration of the message broker client and the delete topic administrative interface, locate issues in certificate verification and authorization for high-risk administrative operations, and provide minimal security fixes.\", \"target_files\": [\"app\u002Fbroker_client.py\", \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fadmin_topics.py\", \"app\u002Fauth.py\"], \"requested_change\": \"Enable hostname and certificate chain verification, restrict to TLS 1.2 or higher; the delete topic interface must require platform_admin or topics:delete permission, and bind the target tenant before and after authorization.\"}","[\"Transport security\", \"TLS certificate verification\", \"Bearer token authentication\", \"Administrative interface authorization\", \"Tenant isolation\"]","The code has basic restrictions on TLS version, but explicitly disables certificate and hostname verification, resulting in insufficient transport security. Topic metadata reading has a tenant prefix check, whereas the delete topic administrative interface only has authentication without authorization and tenant binding, constituting a serious exposure of high-risk administrative operations.","{\"entry_points\": [\"BrokerTLSConfig.connect\", \"DELETE \u002Fadmin\u002Ftopics\u002F{topic}\", \"GET \u002Fv1\u002Ftopics\u002F{topic}\u002Fmetadata\"], \"nodes\": [{\"symbol_name\": \"BrokerTLSConfig.build_context\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fbroker_client.py\", \"node_type\": \"method\", \"security_role\": \"creates message broker TLS context\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"BrokerTLSConfig.connect\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fbroker_client.py\", \"node_type\": \"method\", \"security_role\": \"establishes broker client using TLS context\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"delete_topic\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fadmin_topics.py\", \"node_type\": \"interface handler function\", \"security_role\": \"executes delete topic administrative operation after authentication\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"topic_metadata\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fadmin_topics.py\", \"node_type\": \"interface handler function\", \"security_role\": \"reads metadata after authentication and tenant topic boundary validation\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"client.delete_topic\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fbroker_client.py\", \"node_type\": \"client method\", \"security_role\": \"sends delete topic request to broker\"}], \"edges\": [{\"caller\": \"BrokerTLSConfig.connect\", \"callee\": \"BrokerTLSConfig.build_context\", \"relation\": \"direct call\", \"propagated_policy\": \"TLS minimum version and certificate verification configuration are passed to BrokerClient\"}, {\"caller\": \"delete_topic\", \"callee\": \"decode_access_token\", \"relation\": \"direct call\", \"propagated_policy\": \"Bearer token identity enters the administrative request, but permissions or tenant constraints are not parsed\"}, {\"caller\": \"delete_topic\", \"callee\": \"client.delete_topic\", \"relation\": \"direct call\", \"propagated_policy\": \"only the topic parameter without resource authorization is propagated\"}, {\"caller\": \"topic_metadata\", \"callee\": \"decode_access_token\", \"relation\": \"direct call\", \"propagated_policy\": \"tenant_id in token is used for topic prefix validation\"}, {\"caller\": \"topic_metadata\", \"callee\": \"client.metadata\", \"relation\": \"direct call\", \"propagated_policy\": \"tenant topic that passed prefix check enters broker read operation\"}]}","[{\"finding_type\": \"Administrative interface missing high-risk operation permission check\", \"severity\": \"Critical\", \"location\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fadmin_topics.py: delete_topic\", \"evidence\": \"def delete_topic(topic: str, authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict: token = decode_access_token(authorization.removeprefix('Bearer ')); if token is None: raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='invalid token'); client.delete_topic(topic)\", \"impact\": \"Any subject able to obtain a valid token may delete any topic. This operation can cause cross-tenant message loss, service disruption, and irreversible data destruction.\", \"recommended_fix\": \"Before client.delete_topic, call a unified authorizer requiring platform_admin or topics:delete, and verify that the tenant_id in the token matches the tenant owning the target topic; cross-tenant deletion should use a separate platform_topics:delete permission and record audit events.\"}, {\"finding_type\": \"Tenant boundary not propagated to delete operation\", \"severity\": \"High\", \"location\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fadmin_topics.py: delete_topic\", \"evidence\": \"delete_topic only checks whether the return value of decode_access_token is empty; it does not read token['tenant_id'] or check the topic's tenant prefix.\", \"impact\": \"Even if a generic delete permission is added, an ordinary tenant subject with that permission could replace the topic path with another tenant's topic, causing cross-tenant deletion.\", \"recommended_fix\": \"Parse the tenant owning the topic and compare it at resource level with the token tenant_id; pass the target tenant as an authorizer input instead of relying only on URL or string parameters.\"}]","[{\"endpoint\": \"DELETE \u002Fadmin\u002Ftopics\u002F{topic}\", \"required_permission\": \"platform_admin or topics:delete; cross-tenant operations require platform_topics:delete\", \"check_location\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fadmin_topics.py: delete_topic\", \"check_result\": \"It only checks whether the token can be parsed, not roles, scopes, the target topic tenant, or operation audit, so the permission check is incomplete.\"}]","{\"isolation_mechanisms\": [\"Topic metadata interface uses token tenant_id for prefix validation\", \"Tenant identifier is embedded in the topic naming convention\"], \"tenant_context_flow\": \"topic_metadata reads tenant_id from the token and requires topic to start with that value followed by a period before calling client.metadata. Although delete_topic parses the token, it does not propagate the tenant_id within it to authorization or the broker delete call.\", \"cross_tenant_risks\": [\"The delete topic interface does not validate the tenant owning the topic, so the path parameter can be replaced with another tenant's topic.\", \"The topic naming convention is only used in the metadata read interface and does not form a unified resource boundary at the broker client layer.\"]}","1. Change the TLS context to use a trusted CA, keep check_hostname as True, and set verify_mode to ssl.CERT_REQUIRED. 2. Add non-bypassable secure defaults to BrokerClient, rejecting externally supplied CERT_NONE. 3. In delete_topic, parse the tenant owning the topic and call authorize(token, 'topics:delete', resource_tenant). 4. Use explicit permissions and audit events for platform_admin cross-tenant deletion. 5. Add tests for untrusted certificates, hostname mismatch, ordinary members deleting same-tenant topics, cross-tenant deletion, and legitimate administrator deletion.","[{\"control_type\": \"TLS protocol version\", \"location\": \"app\u002Fbroker_client.py: BrokerTLSConfig.build_context\", \"implementation_status\": \"Implemented but still requires configuration audit\", \"evidence\": \"context.minimum_version = ssl.TLSVersion.TLSv1_2 restricts the minimum version to TLS 1.2.\"}, {\"control_type\": \"Server certificate and hostname verification\", \"location\": \"app\u002Fbroker_client.py: BrokerTLSConfig.build_context\", \"implementation_status\": \"Weak configuration, to be fixed\", \"evidence\": \"context.check_hostname = False; context.verify_mode = ssl.CERT_NONE; This disables hostname and certificate chain verification, making the client vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks.\"}]",{"id":699,"relate_table":666,"relate_id":700,"file_size":573,"file_name":701,"path":8,"duration":573,"cate":483,"file_format":669,"audio_rate":8,"audio_channel":522,"audio_bit_depth":522,"quality":8,"annotation":702,"cate_name":671,"source_code":703,"task_context":704,"security_domains":705,"security_summary":706,"detected_language":676,"security_call_chain":707,"authorization_findings":708,"admin_permission_checks":709,"tenant_isolation_analysis":710,"implementation_change_plan":711,"transport_security_controls":712},15028,1743996170,"样例_1.json","{\"source_code\": \"from dataclasses import dataclass\\nfrom fastapi import APIRouter, Depends, Header, HTTPException\\nfrom app.auth import decode_access_token\\nfrom app.broker import broker\\n\\nrouter = APIRouter()\\n\\n@dataclass\\nclass RequestContext:\\n    subject: str\\n    tenant_id: str\\n    role: str\\n    scopes: set[str]\\n\\ndef require_context(authorization: str = Header(...)) -> RequestContext:\\n    if not authorization.startswith('Bearer '):\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='missing bearer token')\\n    claims = decode_access_token(authorization[7:])\\n    if claims is None:\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='invalid token')\\n    return RequestContext(\\n        subject=claims['sub'],\\n        tenant_id=claims['tenant_id'],\\n        role=claims.get('role', 'member'),\\n        scopes=set(claims.get('scopes', )),\\n    )\\n\\ndef publish_event(ctx: RequestContext, body: dict) -> dict:\\n    topic = body['topic']\\n    if not topic.startswith(f'{ctx.tenant_id}.'):\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail='tenant boundary violation')\\n    broker.publish(topic=topic, payload=body['payload'], headers={'tenant_id': ctx.tenant_id})\\n    return {'accepted': True}\\n\\n@router.post('\u002Fv1\u002Fevents')\\ndef publish(body: dict, ctx: RequestContext = Depends(require_context)):\\n    return publish_event(ctx, body)\\n\\n@router.post('\u002Fadmin\u002Ftenants\u002F{tenant_id}\u002Freplay')\\ndef replay(tenant_id: str, event_id: str, authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict:\\n    ctx = require_context(authorization)\\n    if ctx.role != 'platform_admin':\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail='platform admin required')\\n    if tenant_id != ctx.tenant_id and ctx.role != 'platform_admin':\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail='tenant mismatch')\\n    broker.replay(tenant_id=tenant_id, event_id=event_id)\\n    return {'accepted': True}\", \"task_context\": \"{\\\"task_description\\\": \\\"Analyze the secure call chain of the event publishing and tenant management interfaces, determine whether an ordinary authenticated user can bypass fine-grained publish permissions, and propose a fix that does not break platform administrators' cross-tenant operations capability.\\\", \\\"target_files\\\": [\\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py\\\", \\\"app\u002Fauth.py\\\", \\\"app\u002Fbroker.py\\\"], \\\"requested_change\\\": \\\"Enforce the events:publish permission in publish_event, and continue to use the tenant_id from the token for topic boundary validation; retain the platform_admin check for the administrator replay interface, and add audit records for cross-tenant operations.\\\"}\", \"security_domains\": \"[\\\"Bearer token authentication\\\", \\\"scope-based authorization\\\", \\\"tenant isolation\\\", \\\"event publishing access control\\\", \\\"administrative interface permission checks\\\"]\", \"security_summary\": \"The code correctly verifies Bearer tokens and propagates tenant context in event publishing and administrative replay paths, but the ordinary event publishing path only performs topic prefix validation and does not enforce fine-grained events:publish authorization. The administrative interface has a platform_admin check, but the audit and policy expression for cross-tenant operations are still insufficiently clear.\", \"detected_language\": \"Python\", \"security_call_chain\": \"{\\\"entry_points\\\": [\\\"POST \u002Fv1\u002Fevents\\\", \\\"POST \u002Fadmin\u002Ftenants\u002F{tenant_id}\u002Freplay\\\"], \\\"nodes\\\": [{\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"publish\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"interface handler function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"receives event publishing requests and injects authentication context\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"require_context\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"dependency function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"parses Bearer token and constructs subject, tenant, and scope context\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"publish_event\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"performs topic tenant prefix validation and submits messages\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"broker.publish\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fbroker.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"message publish method\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"writes tenant-identified events to the message platform\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"replay\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"interface handler function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"checks platform administrator identity and executes administrative replay operations\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"broker.replay\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\u002Fbroker.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"administrative method\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"redelivers events by tenant and event identifier\\\"}], \\\"edges\\\": [{\\\"caller\\\": \\\"publish\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"require_context\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"dependency injection\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"Bearer identity, subject, tenant_id, and scopes enter the request context\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"publish\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"publish_event\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"tenant_id in RequestContext is used for topic boundary validation\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"publish_event\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"broker.publish\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"tenant_id is written to message headers, but the events:publish scope is not currently propagated or checked\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"replay\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"require_context\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"Bearer identity and role enter the administrative interface check\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"replay\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"broker.replay\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"platform_admin policy and target tenant_id are passed to the replay operation\\\"}]}\", \"authorization_findings\": \"[{\\\"finding_type\\\": \\\"Missing fine-grained publish permission check\\\", \\\"severity\\\": \\\"High\\\", \\\"location\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py: publish_event\\\", \\\"evidence\\\": \\\"def publish_event(ctx: RequestContext, body: dict) -> dict: topic = body['topic']; if not topic.startswith(f'{ctx.tenant_id}.'): raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail='tenant boundary violation'); broker.publish(topic=topic, payload=body['payload'], headers={'tenant_id': ctx.tenant_id})\\\", \\\"impact\\\": \\\"Any member holding a valid Bearer token and belonging to the target tenant, as long as they can construct a topic with a valid tenant prefix, may publish messages even if their token lacks the events:publish scope. Attackers can inject forged events, trigger downstream processes, or increase tenant message costs.\\\", \\\"recommended_fix\\\": \\\"Call a unified authorizer before topic validation, e.g. authorize(ctx, 'events:publish', topic), explicitly rejecting requests that lack the scope; also add unit tests and audit logs for allowed roles and scopes.\\\"}]\", \"admin_permission_checks\": \"[{\\\"endpoint\\\": \\\"POST \u002Fadmin\u002Ftenants\u002F{tenant_id}\u002Freplay\\\", \\\"required_permission\\\": \\\"platform_admin, and the target tenant should match the subject tenant; cross-tenant operations require platform-level operations authorization\\\", \\\"check_location\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py: replay\\\", \\\"check_result\\\": \\\"The platform_admin role is checked and tenant conditions are evaluated; because the second condition contains a negated branch of the same role, platform administrators can operate across tenants, but there is currently no explicit audit event or separate cross-tenant permission name.\\\"}]\", \"tenant_isolation_analysis\": \"{\\\"isolation_mechanisms\\\": [\\\"tenant_id in token claims binds to request context\\\", \\\"published topics must start with the current tenant identifier followed by a period\\\", \\\"tenant_id is written into published message headers\\\", \\\"administrative replay interface requires platform_admin role\\\"], \\\"tenant_context_flow\\\": \\\"require_context extracts tenant_id from the verified token, constructs RequestContext, and passes it to publish_event; publish_event uses this value to validate the topic prefix and writes it into the headers of broker.publish. The replay interface separately reads the same context and passes the tenant_id from the path to the administrative operation.\\\", \\\"cross_tenant_risks\\\": [\\\"The current topic prefix validation can only constrain tenant boundaries; it cannot replace resource-level publish permission checks.\\\", \\\"The cross-tenant branch of the administrative replay interface is protected by the platform_admin condition, but explicit cross-tenant audit records are missing.\\\"]}\", \"implementation_change_plan\": \"1. Add an authorize function in app\u002Fauth.py or a unified policy module, distinguishing identity authentication, scope authorization, and tenant resource authorization. 2. In publish_event, check events:publish and pass topic as the resource to the authorizer. 3. Keep the tenant_id prefix validation to avoid mistaking scope authorization for tenant isolation. 4. Add tests for ordinary members, members without the scope, same-tenant administrators, and cross-tenant platform administrators. 5. In the cross-tenant branch of replay, write audit events and verify that the broker layer does not accept calls missing tenant context.\", \"transport_security_controls\": \"[{\\\"control_type\\\": \\\"Access token transmission\\\", \\\"location\\\": \\\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py: require_context\\\", \\\"implementation_status\\\": \\\"Partially implemented\\\", \\\"evidence\\\": \\\"The code only accepts a Bearer token in the Authorization header; HTTPS termination and token transmission encryption are not reflected in this code snippet.\\\"}]\"}","from dataclasses import dataclass\nfrom fastapi import APIRouter, Depends, Header, HTTPException\nfrom app.auth import decode_access_token\nfrom app.broker import broker\n\nrouter = APIRouter()\n\n@dataclass\nclass RequestContext:\n    subject: str\n    tenant_id: str\n    role: str\n    scopes: set[str]\n\ndef require_context(authorization: str = Header(...)) -> RequestContext:\n    if not authorization.startswith('Bearer '):\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='missing bearer token')\n    claims = decode_access_token(authorization[7:])\n    if claims is None:\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='invalid token')\n    return RequestContext(\n        subject=claims['sub'],\n        tenant_id=claims['tenant_id'],\n        role=claims.get('role', 'member'),\n        scopes=set(claims.get('scopes', )),\n    )\n\ndef publish_event(ctx: RequestContext, body: dict) -> dict:\n    topic = body['topic']\n    if not topic.startswith(f'{ctx.tenant_id}.'):\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail='tenant boundary violation')\n    broker.publish(topic=topic, payload=body['payload'], headers={'tenant_id': ctx.tenant_id})\n    return {'accepted': True}\n\n@router.post('\u002Fv1\u002Fevents')\ndef publish(body: dict, ctx: RequestContext = Depends(require_context)):\n    return publish_event(ctx, body)\n\n@router.post('\u002Fadmin\u002Ftenants\u002F{tenant_id}\u002Freplay')\ndef replay(tenant_id: str, event_id: str, authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict:\n    ctx = require_context(authorization)\n    if ctx.role != 'platform_admin':\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail='platform admin required')\n    if tenant_id != ctx.tenant_id and ctx.role != 'platform_admin':\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail='tenant mismatch')\n    broker.replay(tenant_id=tenant_id, event_id=event_id)\n    return {'accepted': True}","{\"task_description\": \"Analyze the secure call chain of the event publishing and tenant management interfaces, determine whether an ordinary authenticated user can bypass fine-grained publish permissions, and propose a fix that does not break platform administrators' cross-tenant operations capability.\", \"target_files\": [\"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py\", \"app\u002Fauth.py\", \"app\u002Fbroker.py\"], \"requested_change\": \"Enforce the events:publish permission in publish_event, and continue to use the tenant_id from the token for topic boundary validation; retain the platform_admin check for the administrator replay interface, and add audit records for cross-tenant operations.\"}","[\"Bearer token authentication\", \"scope-based authorization\", \"tenant isolation\", \"event publishing access control\", \"administrative interface permission checks\"]","The code correctly verifies Bearer tokens and propagates tenant context in event publishing and administrative replay paths, but the ordinary event publishing path only performs topic prefix validation and does not enforce fine-grained events:publish authorization. The administrative interface has a platform_admin check, but the audit and policy expression for cross-tenant operations are still insufficiently clear.","{\"entry_points\": [\"POST \u002Fv1\u002Fevents\", \"POST \u002Fadmin\u002Ftenants\u002F{tenant_id}\u002Freplay\"], \"nodes\": [{\"symbol_name\": \"publish\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py\", \"node_type\": \"interface handler function\", \"security_role\": \"receives event publishing requests and injects authentication context\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"require_context\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py\", \"node_type\": \"dependency function\", \"security_role\": \"parses Bearer token and constructs subject, tenant, and scope context\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"publish_event\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py\", \"node_type\": \"function\", \"security_role\": \"performs topic tenant prefix validation and submits messages\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"broker.publish\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fbroker.py\", \"node_type\": \"message publish method\", \"security_role\": \"writes tenant-identified events to the message platform\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"replay\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py\", \"node_type\": \"interface handler function\", \"security_role\": \"checks platform administrator identity and executes administrative replay operations\"}, {\"symbol_name\": \"broker.replay\", \"file_path\": \"app\u002Fbroker.py\", \"node_type\": \"administrative method\", \"security_role\": \"redelivers events by tenant and event identifier\"}], \"edges\": [{\"caller\": \"publish\", \"callee\": \"require_context\", \"relation\": \"dependency injection\", \"propagated_policy\": \"Bearer identity, subject, tenant_id, and scopes enter the request context\"}, {\"caller\": \"publish\", \"callee\": \"publish_event\", \"relation\": \"direct call\", \"propagated_policy\": \"tenant_id in RequestContext is used for topic boundary validation\"}, {\"caller\": \"publish_event\", \"callee\": \"broker.publish\", \"relation\": \"direct call\", \"propagated_policy\": \"tenant_id is written to message headers, but the events:publish scope is not currently propagated or checked\"}, {\"caller\": \"replay\", \"callee\": \"require_context\", \"relation\": \"direct call\", \"propagated_policy\": \"Bearer identity and role enter the administrative interface check\"}, {\"caller\": \"replay\", \"callee\": \"broker.replay\", \"relation\": \"direct call\", \"propagated_policy\": \"platform_admin policy and target tenant_id are passed to the replay operation\"}]}","[{\"finding_type\": \"Missing fine-grained publish permission check\", \"severity\": \"High\", \"location\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py: publish_event\", \"evidence\": \"def publish_event(ctx: RequestContext, body: dict) -> dict: topic = body['topic']; if not topic.startswith(f'{ctx.tenant_id}.'): raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail='tenant boundary violation'); broker.publish(topic=topic, payload=body['payload'], headers={'tenant_id': ctx.tenant_id})\", \"impact\": \"Any member holding a valid Bearer token and belonging to the target tenant, as long as they can construct a topic with a valid tenant prefix, may publish messages even if their token lacks the events:publish scope. Attackers can inject forged events, trigger downstream processes, or increase tenant message costs.\", \"recommended_fix\": \"Call a unified authorizer before topic validation, e.g. authorize(ctx, 'events:publish', topic), explicitly rejecting requests that lack the scope; also add unit tests and audit logs for allowed roles and scopes.\"}]","[{\"endpoint\": \"POST \u002Fadmin\u002Ftenants\u002F{tenant_id}\u002Freplay\", \"required_permission\": \"platform_admin, and the target tenant should match the subject tenant; cross-tenant operations require platform-level operations authorization\", \"check_location\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py: replay\", \"check_result\": \"The platform_admin role is checked and tenant conditions are evaluated; because the second condition contains a negated branch of the same role, platform administrators can operate across tenants, but there is currently no explicit audit event or separate cross-tenant permission name.\"}]","{\"isolation_mechanisms\": [\"tenant_id in token claims binds to request context\", \"published topics must start with the current tenant identifier followed by a period\", \"tenant_id is written into published message headers\", \"administrative replay interface requires platform_admin role\"], \"tenant_context_flow\": \"require_context extracts tenant_id from the verified token, constructs RequestContext, and passes it to publish_event; publish_event uses this value to validate the topic prefix and writes it into the headers of broker.publish. The replay interface separately reads the same context and passes the tenant_id from the path to the administrative operation.\", \"cross_tenant_risks\": [\"The current topic prefix validation can only constrain tenant boundaries; it cannot replace resource-level publish permission checks.\", \"The cross-tenant branch of the administrative replay interface is protected by the platform_admin condition, but explicit cross-tenant audit records are missing.\"]}","1. Add an authorize function in app\u002Fauth.py or a unified policy module, distinguishing identity authentication, scope authorization, and tenant resource authorization. 2. In publish_event, check events:publish and pass topic as the resource to the authorizer. 3. Keep the tenant_id prefix validation to avoid mistaking scope authorization for tenant isolation. 4. Add tests for ordinary members, members without the scope, same-tenant administrators, and cross-tenant platform administrators. 5. In the cross-tenant branch of replay, write audit events and verify that the broker layer does not accept calls missing tenant context.","[{\"control_type\": \"Access token transmission\", \"location\": \"app\u002Fapi\u002Fevents.py: require_context\", \"implementation_status\": \"Partially implemented\", \"evidence\": \"The code only accepts a Bearer token in the Authorization header; HTTPS termination and token transmission encryption are not reflected in this code snippet.\"}]","{\"source_code\":\"from dataclasses import dataclass\\nfrom fastapi import APIRouter, Header, HTTPException\\nfrom app.auth import decode_access_token\\nfrom app.events import event_store\\nfrom app.policy import authorize\\nfrom app.queue import tasks\\nfrom app.publisher import publisher\\n\\nrouter = APIRouter()\\n\\n@dataclass\\nclass SecurityContext:\\n    subject: str\\n    tenant_id: str\\n    scopes: set[str]\\n\\ndef build_context(authorization: str) -> SecurityContext:\\n    if not authorization.startswith('Bearer '):\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='missing bearer token')\\n    claims = decode_access_token(authorization[7:])\\n    if claims is None:\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=401, detail='invalid token')\\n    return SecurityContext(\\n        subject=claims['sub'],\\n        tenant_id=claims['tenant_id'],\\n        scopes=set(claims.get('scopes', )),\\n    )\\n\\n@router.post('\\\u002Fv1\\\u002Fevents\\\u002F{event_id}\\\u002Fretry')\\ndef retry_event(event_id: str, authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict:\\n    ctx = build_context(authorization)\\n    event = event_store.get(event_id)\\n    if event is None or event.tenant_id != ctx.tenant_id:\\n        raise HTTPException(status_code=404, detail='event not found')\\n    authorize(ctx, 'events:retry', event.topic)\\n    tasks.enqueue(retry_in_background, event_id)\\n    return {'queued': True}\\n\\ndef retry_in_background(event_id: str) -> None:\\n    event = event_store.get(event_id)\\n    if event is None:\\n        return\\n    publisher.publish(topic=event.topic, payload=event.payload)\\n\\n@router.post('\\\u002Fadmin\\\u002Fkeys\\\u002Frotate')\\ndef rotate_keys(authorization: str = Header(...)) -> dict:\\n    ctx = build_context(authorization)\\n    authorize(ctx, 'keys:rotate', 'platform')\\n    event_store.rotate_signing_key()\\n    return {'rotated': True}\",\"task_context\":\"{\\\"task_description\\\": \\\"Analyze the propagation of security policy for event retry requests from the HTTP entry point into the background task, confirm whether authorization context is lost at the asynchronous boundary, and design a modification that will not allow unauthorized republishing.\\\", \\\"target_files\\\": [\\\"app\\\u002Fapi\\\u002Fretry.py\\\", \\\"app\\\u002Fpolicy.py\\\", \\\"app\\\u002Fqueue.py\\\", \\\"app\\\u002Fpublisher.py\\\"], \\\"requested_change\\\": \\\"Make background tasks carry tamper-proof tenant and subject context, or re-verify authorization when the task executes; before publishing, it must reconfirm the events:retry permission and the event tenant ownership, and must not directly publish after looking up only by event_id.\\\"}\",\"security_domains\":\"[\\\"Token authentication\\\", \\\"Event retry authorization\\\", \\\"Asynchronous task security context propagation\\\", \\\"Tenant isolation\\\", \\\"Policy enforcement\\\", \\\"Key management interface permissions\\\"]\",\"security_summary\":\"The code correctly performs identity authentication, same-tenant check, and events:retry authorization at the HTTP entry point, but the asynchronous queue only stores event_id, causing subject, tenant, and policy to be lost at the boundary. The background worker then unconditionally publishes events, creating a serious authorization bypass and potential cross-tenant risk. The key rotation interface uses a unified authorizer, so the overall pattern is good, but the underlying transport security of the publisher still requires separate review.\",\"detected_language\":\"Python\",\"security_call_chain\":\"{\\\"entry_points\\\": [\\\"POST \\\u002Fv1\\\u002Fevents\\\u002F{event_id}\\\u002Fretry\\\", \\\"retry_in_background\\\", \\\"POST \\\u002Fadmin\\\u002Fkeys\\\u002Frotate\\\"], \\\"nodes\\\": [{\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"retry_event\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\\\u002Fapi\\\u002Fretry.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"interface handler function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"authenticates request and checks event tenant and retry permission\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"build_context\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\\\u002Fapi\\\u002Fretry.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"constructs subject, tenant, and scope context from token\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"authorize\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\\\u002Fpolicy.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"policy component\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"determines whether the subject has permission for the target action and resource\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"tasks.enqueue\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\\\u002Fqueue.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"queue method\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"submits retry task to the asynchronous execution boundary\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"retry_in_background\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\\\u002Fapi\\\u002Fretry.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"background task function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"reads event and republishes it, currently without authorization and tenant validation\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"publisher.publish\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\\\u002Fpublisher.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"publish method\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"writes retry event back to the message platform\\\"}, {\\\"symbol_name\\\": \\\"rotate_keys\\\", \\\"file_path\\\": \\\"app\\\u002Fapi\\\u002Fretry.py\\\", \\\"node_type\\\": \\\"administrative interface handler function\\\", \\\"security_role\\\": \\\"checks key rotation permission and performs platform key changes\\\"}], \\\"edges\\\": [{\\\"caller\\\": \\\"retry_event\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"build_context\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"Bearer token converted into tenant_id, subject, and scopes\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"retry_event\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"authorize\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"events:retry policy executed within the HTTP request using the event topic as the resource\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"retry_event\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"tasks.enqueue\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"event triggered\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"only event_id is passed; SecurityContext or signed authorization snapshot is not passed\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"tasks.enqueue\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"retry_in_background\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"asynchronous dispatch\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"subject, tenant, and events:retry policy are lost at the asynchronous boundary\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"retry_in_background\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"publisher.publish\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"only event topic and payload are passed; no tenant or permission policy\\\"}, {\\\"caller\\\": \\\"rotate_keys\\\", \\\"callee\\\": \\\"authorize\\\", \\\"relation\\\": \\\"direct call\\\", \\\"propagated_policy\\\": \\\"keys:rotate permission bound to platform resource\\\"}]}\",\"authorization_findings\":\"[{\\\"finding_type\\\": \\\"Policy propagation loss in asynchronous task\\\", \\\"severity\\\": \\\"Critical\\\", \\\"location\\\": \\\"app\\\u002Fapi\\\u002Fretry.py: retry_event and retry_in_background\\\", \\\"evidence\\\": \\\"In retry_event, authorize(ctx, 'events:retry', event.topic) is executed first, but afterward only tasks.enqueue(retry_in_background, event_id) is called. retry_in_background directly calls publisher.publish after event_store.get(event_id), without receiving or reconstructing SecurityContext.\\\", \\\"impact\\\": \\\"As long as the queue caller can make a task carry a valid event_id, the background execution path may bypass the events:retry authorization at the entry point; if event identifiers can be predicted, replayed, or abused by trusted internal components, this may lead to unauthorized event republishing and cross-tenant message spread.\\\", \\\"recommended_fix\\\": \\\"The task message should include protected tenant_id, subject, event_id, and authorization version, and the worker should reload the event and perform tenant ownership and events:retry checks; a safer approach is for the worker to use a service identity to call the unified policy engine while including the original request subject as an audit field.\\\"}, {\\\"finding_type\\\": \\\"Background publishing missing tenant boundary validation\\\", \\\"severity\\\": \\\"High\\\", \\\"location\\\": \\\"app\\\u002Fapi\\\u002Fretry.py: retry_in_background\\\", \\\"evidence\\\": \\\"def retry_in_background(event_id: str) -> None: event = event_store.get(event_id); if event is None: return; publisher.publish(topic=event.topic, payload=event.payload)\\\", \\\"impact\\\": \\\"The background function does not verify whether the task subject tenant matches the event tenant_id, nor does it pass tenant context to publisher; a misrouted or tampered task may republish events from other tenants.\\\", \\\"recommended_fix\\\": \\\"Add tenant_id to the task payload and use an identity comparison in the worker to verify event.tenant_id; publisher.publish should also require an explicit tenant_id and reject calls missing it or with a mismatch.\\\"}]\",\"admin_permission_checks\":\"[{\\\"endpoint\\\": \\\"POST \\\u002Fadmin\\\u002Fkeys\\\u002Frotate\\\", \\\"required_permission\\\": \\\"keys:rotate, with resource platform\\\", \\\"check_location\\\": \\\"app\\\u002Fapi\\\u002Fretry.py: rotate_keys\\\", \\\"check_result\\\": \\\"The interface first authenticates through build_context, then calls authorize(ctx, 'keys:rotate', 'platform'); from the current code, the permission check location is correct, but it should ensure that authorize rejects empty scopes, expired tokens, and non-platform resource subjects.\\\"}]\",\"tenant_isolation_analysis\":\"{\\\"isolation_mechanisms\\\": [\\\"HTTP entry point performs same-tenant check based on event.tenant_id and ctx.tenant_id\\\", \\\"Authorizer receives event topic as resource\\\", \\\"Event record contains tenant_id field\\\"], \\\"tenant_context_flow\\\": \\\"retry_event creates SecurityContext from the token, validates the event using tenant_id, and then calls authorize on the synchronous path; when enqueuing, only event_id is passed, so after entering retry_in_background the tenant context no longer exists, and finally publisher.publish also does not receive tenant_id. The key rotation interface uses the platform resource for independent authorization.\\\", \\\"cross_tenant_risks\\\": [\\\"The asynchronous task reads and publishes events based only on event_id, lacking a binding between the task tenant and the event tenant.\\\", \\\"The publisher interface does not require tenant context, allowing callers to bypass isolation at the entry layer.\\\", \\\"If queue messages can be replayed, expired or revoked retry permissions will not be rechecked during background execution.\\\"]}\",\"implementation_change_plan\":\"1. Define a tamper-proof RetryTask including event_id, tenant_id, subject, authorization version, and expiration time, and have the queue producer sign it or use a protected task channel. 2. In retry_in_background, after reloading the event, verify that the task tenant_id matches event.tenant_id. 3. When the worker executes, re-call the policy engine to check events:retry, handling permission revocation and policy changes. 4. Change publisher.publish to require tenant_id as a mandatory parameter and revalidate the topic tenant prefix inside the publisher. 5. Add tests for task replay, permission revocation, cross-tenant event_id, tenant mismatch, and invalid signature.\",\"transport_security_controls\":\"[{\\\"control_type\\\": \\\"Message publishing link encryption\\\", \\\"location\\\": \\\"The implementation of app\\\u002Fpublisher.py: publisher.publish is not included in the snippet\\\", \\\"implementation_status\\\": \\\"Cannot be confirmed from the current code\\\", \\\"evidence\\\": \\\"The current snippet only shows the call to publisher.publish, not its TLS, certificate verification, or security protocol configuration; further review should be performed in publisher initialization and connection configuration.\\\"}]\"}","MOBIUSI INC","https:\u002F\u002Fstatic.mobiusi.com\u002Fmobiwusi\u002F20250829\u002F7bf4ac62b4533e2b809998a6f1c5491e.png?Expires=1792463130&OSSAccessKeyId=LTAI5tH8MQqhgeiAtrzCHrxM&Signature=v6Tr8jBrdm4s5wU1SnnyGsYg%2Bhw%3D&x-oss-process=image%2Fresize%2Cm_fill%2Cw_35%2Ch_35",[717,723],{"type":718,"title":719,"count_data":720},"bar","Length distribution",[721],{"name":722,"value":483},"1k lower",{"type":724,"title":725,"count_data":726},"pie","Language distribution",[727],{"name":728,"value":483},"English"]