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>
2.5 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-httpclient-c07 | 절대 URI를 정화하지 않고 거부한다 | security-and-trust-boundaries | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-httpclient-c07 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-httpclient |
절대 URI를 정화하지 않고 거부한다
TrustedTargetPolicy는 절대 URI를 정화하는 대신 거부한다. 목적지를 바꾸는 것은 다른 계층의 일이고 그 계층은 자기 정책·자격증명·DNS 검증을 갖는다.
본문
TrustedTargetPolicy의 규칙 — "An absolute URI is rejected here rather than sanitised: H2 exists to vary method, relative path, query, approved headers, and body — not the destination. Changing the destination is what H3 is for, and H3 has its own policy, credentials, and DNS validation."
템플릿이 거부되는 조건
requireRelativeTemplate가 빈 템플릿, // 시작, :// 포함, /로 시작하지 않음을 거부한다. 확장은 문자열 연결이 아니라 Spring DefaultUriBuilderFactory의 TEMPLATE_AND_VALUES 인코딩이라 "a value containing /, ?, or # cannot change the shape of the request." 그리고 확장 후에 requireAllowedOrigin이 host/port allowlist를 다시 본다.
TrustedTargetPolicy 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-httpclient-c07" alt="코드베이스에서 TrustedTargetPolicy 를 검색한 출력 12줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="TrustedTargetPolicy 코드베이스 검색 — 12줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
리다이렉트 hop에 allowlist를 다시 적용하는 이유
멱등성 키 처리에 수정 이력 둘이 붙어 있다. 그리고 리다이렉트 hop에 allowlist를 다시 적용하는 requireAllowedTarget이 public인 이유도 적혀 있다 — 조정자가 이전에는 리다이렉트 정책만 보고 프로파일 allowlist를 보지 않아 "An upstream could therefore redirect a trusted profile to any origin the redirect policy tolerated, including one the operator had explicitly excluded."