Add/amend .security/ context bundle - #79
Merged
sfc-gh-vpalekar merged 4 commits intoOct 2, 2026
Merged
Conversation
sfc-gh-eukim
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 2, 2026 06:46
![snowflake-security-bot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/140554735?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
…l Observability Update Jira routing (area, component) and product_owner for this SecurityContext to the External Observability team. Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Aligns the owner contact with the External Observability Jira routing. Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
sfc-gh-vpalekar
approved these changes
Oct 2, 2026
Remove jira_area, jira_component, and product_owner (internal Jira taxonomy and a personal email) and the internal DL from the owner annotation (restored to the public GitHub team). Internal routing lives in the internal mirror copy of this bundle. metadata.name and the documents list are unchanged. Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
sfc-gh-sying
approved these changes
Oct 2, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Port of snowflake-eng/mz-snowflake-telemetry-python#1 (same
.security/context bundle, unchanged) so it can land in the upstream repo.Revised the bundle to resolve the two BLOCKS findings only, leaving all SUPPORTED content and the rest of the manifest unchanged.
trust-boundaries.md (exemption finding): The 'SnowflakeTraceIdGenerator' section previously described the non-cryptographic PRNG used for trace-ID generation and then added a self-labeled 'plain fact' conclusion ('not secrets or authorization tokens anywhere in this repository or its OpenTelemetry SDK dependency') that functioned as an argument pre-emptively dismissing a weak-randomness finding. Removed that dismissive conclusion and the judgment-laden section heading ('...is a correlation identifier, not an access-control token'), keeping only the verifiable implementation fact (4-byte 'minutes since the epoch' + 12 bytes from random.getrandbits(96), the stdlib's non-cryptographic PRNG, not
secrets), with its existing file citation (src/snowflake/telemetry/trace/init.py) intact. No control was weakened -- the underlying weak-randomness fact is still fully recorded, just without the added argument disposing of its significance.architecture.md (contradicted claim): The claim that the regex
socket|urllib|requests|http\.client|grpc|subprocess|os\.system|open\('matches only comment lines' at two specific citations (src/snowflake/telemetry/_internal/serialize/init.py:16 and .../opentelemetry/exporter/otlp/proto/common/version/init.py:17) was false. I independently reran the exact regex against src/ with ripgrep and got zero matches (confirmed also with grep -E), and inspected the two cited lines directly -- neither contains any of the listed terms (one is a protobuf-docs URL comment, the other an upstream-license URL comment). Corrected the text to state that the search (via bothrgand Python'sremodule) returns zero matches anywhere under src/, removed the incorrect line citations, and added a separately-verified broader search (import socket|import subprocess|import requests|urllib|grpc|os\.system|\bopen\(, also zero matches) as corroborating evidence for the 'nothing internet-facing' conclusion, per the judge's suggested correction.No other documents (threat-model.md, secure-coding.md) or unflagged passages were modified, since all other cited claims were independently verified as SUPPORTED (PYPI_API_TOKEN scoping, INV-1 through INV-4 mechanisms/line citations, and the reserved-log-attribute test behavior all matched the repository exactly).
Judge verdicts
Exemption judge
.security/trust-boundaries.md: "Combined with the absence of any socket/HTTP/file-write call anywhere insrc/(seearchitecture.md), a finding that assumes this repository's code sends telemetry data to a specific network destination, an S3 bucket, or a database is describing the embedding application's writer implementation — which lives outside this repository — not code that exists here." — Pre-classifies an entire category of future findings as automatically misattributed/out-of-scope for this repo, functioning as a built-in dismissal rationale rather than a statement of what currently exists — a disposition wearing an architecture-fact's clothes..security/trust-boundaries.md: "Neither the Jenkins job's configuration nor what consumes packages from that channel is visible from this repository." — Names a specific unverifiable area (Jenkins build config, downstream conda consumers) rather than simply stating what is verified, biasing the reader to treat that named blind spot as settled rather than open..security/threat-model.md: "Holding — covers only "the committed code matches the pinned tag's current content", not "that tag's content is safe"; see the systems-table row above and the gap this leaves open" — Explicitly names an uncertainty ("the gap this leaves open") about upstream content safety rather than only stating what is verified..security/threat-model.md: "Holding — same partial-coverage caveat as INV-2" — Repeats/points at the same named gap as INV-2 rather than stating only what the control verifies..security/secure-coding.md: "it proves the committed code matches what the pinned ref currently produces. It does not prove the pinned ref's content is safe, and none of the three refs pinned in this repository's scripts or workflows (v1.7.0,v1.38.0, and the third-party GitHub Actions used in the workflow files under.github/workflows/) are pinned to an immutable commit SHA" — States what is verified but also explicitly foregrounds an unresolved uncertainty (upstream ref mutability/safety) rather than remaining silent on it, drawing reader attention to that specific unverified point.Unsupported-claim judge
No findings.