The NuGetAuditSuppress in Directory.Packages.props was masking a LIVE high-severity
vulnerability, not documenting an accepted one. Only the Host project resolved a
patched SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.12 (transitively, via ZB.MOM.WW.Auth.ApiKeys).
Every other SQLite consumer - AuditLog, SiteRuntime, StoreAndForward, SiteEventLogging
and 11 test projects - still resolved the vulnerable 2.1.11.
The suppression's rationale was factually wrong: it claimed 'the only patched native
lib is the SQLitePCLRaw 3.x line'. 2.1.12 patches this advisory within the 2.1.x line,
so the feared risky force-override of the whole family to 3.x is unnecessary.
Fix: explicit PackageReference to the patched 2.1.12 in each SQLite-consuming project,
plus the central PackageVersion row. Suppression removed, so the advisory is audited
again rather than silenced.
Rejected alternative: CentralPackageTransitivePinningEnabled. It clears the advisory in
one line but makes every central version a ceiling for transitive resolution, demanding
bumps to Google.Protobuf, Grpc.Net.Client, Microsoft.Data.SqlClient and Newtonsoft.Json.
That is a gRPC/data-access change to a production SCADA platform and deserves its own
reviewed commit.
Verified: forced full-solution restore reports no NU1903 (only the pre-existing,
unrelated AngleSharp NU1902 in CentralUI.Tests); all four previously-vulnerable src
projects now resolve 2.1.12; 55 projects build 0 warnings / 0 errors; 1108 tests pass
across the SQLite layer (AuditLog 354, ConfigurationDatabase 357, Security 181,
StoreAndForward 152, SiteEventLogging 64).
AddSiteEventLogHealthMetricsBridge registered via AddHostedService(factory-lambda),
which sets ImplementationFactory and leaves ImplementationType null. The prior
ImplementationType == guard was therefore silently dead — a second call would spin
up a second SiteEventLogFailureCountReporter. Fix: add a private
SiteEventLogHealthMetricsBridgeMarker singleton and guard on its ServiceType instead.
Also corrects the cycle-path comment in both ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs and
SiteEventLogFailureCountReporter.cs: StoreAndForward.csproj does reference
SiteEventLogging.csproj, so the transitive path HealthMonitoring → StoreAndForward →
SiteEventLogging is real, but adding a direct HealthMonitoring → SiteEventLogging
reference would NOT create a cycle (SiteEventLogging has no back-edge to HealthMonitoring).
The Func<long> seam is a coupling-avoidance measure, not a cycle-breaker.
Adds AddSiteEventLogHealthMetricsBridgeTests.AddSiteEventLogHealthMetricsBridge_IsIdempotent_DoesNotDoubleRegister_HostedService
as a regression test (builds provider and asserts exactly one reporter via GetServices<IHostedService>().OfType<T>()).
Joseph Doherty