docs: Record security audit verdict - #23
BenWestgate wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 00470b1f2b
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 3bc520a5d3
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 30e54cab79
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: c5ec185f0a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
Put planning back in .gitignore. this is a nightmare to review documents the world is not meant to see. Create a separate folder for audit results instead which are at least finished documents not subject to endless nit picking.. |
Keep local planning state ignored and publish only the finished audit result in a dedicated audit directory. This narrows the review surface to stable findings and their tracking references. Refs #20.
c5ec185 to
dc0d70a
Compare
BenWestgate
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: dc0d70a46d
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
BenWestgate
added
gate: adversarial review
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: f7b86cd9b7
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
BenWestgate
left a comment
BenWestgate
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AI-generated review (Claude), posted at the maintainer's request.
ACK f7b86cd, with one cross-PR conflict.
- The accident-safety vs tampering split (#28/#57 vs #55) reads accurately, and the 32-bit grind point is stated without overclaiming.
- #21 and #22 closed today. A one-line "Status: fixed in " under each would stop readers treating them as open. Same for #32 once #33 lands.
- Nit: no trailing newline at EOF.
|
Follow-up on the ACK nits: I’m not baking transient PR state into this historical verdict yet. The report intentionally records what was true at audited parent |
This branch has not been deployed
2 participants
Record the finished 2026-09-22 python-codex32 security-audit verdict in a dedicated
docs/audits/directory.Local planning, release-gate, helper-script, and unfinished review state remains ignored under
docs/planning/; it is not part of this PR.The verdict records confirmed findings, the falsified candidate, protocol/application hazards, and the required recovery boundary without changing normative security-model text ahead of the implementation fixes.
The current audit text also separates the two recovery threat models explicitly:
This removes the earlier implication that a 32-bit fingerprint must itself provide malicious-substitution resistance; closed #27 records that disposition. #43 tracks stronger human-record error detection and optional canonical single-sig descriptor-checksum evidence.
Refs #20.
Checks: documentation-only diff; links updated for the audit directory. The threat-model correction is commit
f7b86cd.