dohertj2/lmxopcua
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 14 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs/security.md summary still claims NodeAcl enforcement is "never wired" and reads carry no authorization — stale since #520 stages 5–6 #547

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-08-06 19:37:24 -04:00 by dohertj2 · 0 comments
dohertj2 commented 2026-08-06 19:37:24 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Found during the #545 posture-record work (2026-08-06). docs/security.md line ~24 (the summary list at the top) still says data-plane authz is "not by the NodeAcl / PermissionTrie subsystem, which is built and unit-tested but never wired" and that "Read, Browse, HistoryRead and Subscribe carry no authorization check at all."

Both claims have been false since Gitea #520 stages 5–6 (master, 2026-08-01): scoped NodeAcl grants ARE enforced behind Security:Acl:Enabled (default off), and with the flag on they gate every data-plane operation including read/browse/subscribe/HistoryRead. Configuration.md:89 already links a security.md#node-acl-enforcement-securityaclenabled section describing the new behaviour — so the document contradicts itself: a reader who stops at the summary gets the pre-#520 answer.

Scope: fix the summary list (and sweep security.md for any other pre-#520 authz claims) to state the flag-gated reality. Docs-only.

Found during the #545 posture-record work (2026-08-06). docs/security.md line ~24 (the summary list at the top) still says data-plane authz is "**not** by the NodeAcl / PermissionTrie subsystem, which is built and unit-tested but never wired" and that "Read, Browse, HistoryRead and Subscribe carry **no** authorization check at all." Both claims have been false since Gitea #520 stages 5–6 (master, 2026-08-01): scoped NodeAcl grants ARE enforced behind Security:Acl:Enabled (default off), and with the flag on they gate every data-plane operation including read/browse/subscribe/HistoryRead. Configuration.md:89 already links a security.md#node-acl-enforcement-securityaclenabled section describing the new behaviour — so the document contradicts itself: a reader who stops at the summary gets the pre-#520 answer. Scope: fix the summary list (and sweep security.md for any other pre-#520 authz claims) to state the flag-gated reality. Docs-only.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
auto-managed
queue management
 cross-driver
queue management
 driver/abcip
queue management
 driver/ablegacy
queue management
 driver/focas
queue management
 driver/mqtt
MQTT / Sparkplug B broker-subscribe driver
 driver/opcuaclient
queue management
 driver/s7
queue management
 driver/twincat
queue management
 phase/1
queue management
 phase/2
queue management
 phase/3
queue management
 phase/4
queue management
 phase/5
queue management
 phase/6
queue management
 queue/blocked
queue management
 queue/done
queue management
 queue/failed
queue management
 queue/in-progress
queue management
 queue/queued
queue management
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
dohertj2 (dohertj2)
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: dohertj2/lmxopcua#547
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?