DongHyeonkaandClaude Opus 5
b2963105a8
The keycloak project ended with four open questions that design could not
settle. A two-VM lab was built to answer them by measurement, and this is
that material: 26 experiments, 125 raw command outputs, 22 browser captures.
Follows the import procedure in README.md.
source/ the originating repository verbatim — 78 documents, 28 SVGs,
8 manifests, plus .source-revision recording the commit
final/ the SSOT
document.md 729 lines written from the 29 experiment documents, not
concatenated: what was predicted, what was measured, and
where the measurement itself was wrong
evidence/raw 125 outputs, flattened to <experiment>__<file> because
the originals collided (01-baseline.txt appeared three
times) and the audit only globs the top level
evidence/meta one per raw file; command and exitCode are null and the
README says why rather than inventing them
evidence/browser 22 captures
assets/ three diagrams through techviz
.techviz/ their VizSpecs
A separate project rather than an addition to keycloak: the B-layer answers
that project's four questions, but the A, C and D layers are about cluster
failure, SSO and operations, and one document.md should hold one subject.
The four question records there can point here through 관계.
Recorded rather than papered over: only three of the 28 diagrams were
remade. The repository forbids hand-drawn SVG and forbids titles inside the
canvas; all 28 originals carry both, so converting them is redrawing, not
reformatting. They stay in source/ and the gap is written into the document.
verify-pipeline.py passes. audit-records.py reports no issues.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.0 KiB
2.0 KiB
kind, slug, title, topic, project, status, sourceRevision, rootTreeNode, evidenceCapturedOn, assets, evidence, source, module
| kind | slug | title | topic | project | status | sourceRevision | rootTreeNode | evidenceCapturedOn | assets | evidence | source | module | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONCEPT | adapter-outbound-notification-c05 | SSRF 가드의 호출처 둘과 javadoc이 지목하는 둘이 다르다 | identity-and-value-contracts | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-notification-c05 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-notification |
SSRF 가드의 호출처 둘과 javadoc이 지목하는 둘이 다르다
NotificationEndpoints.requireExternallyRoutable의 프로덕션 호출처는 SES endpoint와 webhook target 둘이다. 가드 자신의 javadoc이 위험 대상으로 지목하는 것은 Web Push endpoint와 webhook target이고, Web Push는 호출처 목록에 없다.
본문
NotificationEndpoints.requireExternallyRoutable의 프로덕션 호출처는 둘뿐이다.
.../ses/SesProviderProperties.java:27: NotificationEndpoints.requireExternallyRoutable(endpoint, "SES endpoint", true);
.../webhook/WebhookSubscription.java:49: NotificationEndpoints.requireExternallyRoutable(target, "webhook target", trusted);
javadoc이 위험 대상으로 지목하는 둘
"Web Push endpoints and webhook targets are supplied by clients, which makes this a server-side request forgery primitive."
Web Push는 호출처 목록에 없다. §25.1.
NotificationEndpoints 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-notification-c05" alt="코드베이스에서 NotificationEndpoints 를 검색한 출력 17줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="NotificationEndpoints 코드베이스 검색 — 17줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::