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>
2.3 KiB
2.3 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 | messaging-security-c04 | 시작 검증 호출 지점이 두 곳으로 갈린다 | state-machines-and-ownership | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:messaging-security-c04 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
messaging-security |
시작 검증 호출 지점이 두 곳으로 갈린다
자격증명 해석과 두 갈래 시작 검증, 그리고 발행 권한 확인이 각각 다른 소유자를 갖는다.
관계
- 배선된 게이트는 자기 leaf 레인에서 검증한다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
- 같은 술어가 두 타입에 있으면 하나가 다른 하나를 부른다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
- 가변 필드로 상태 전이를 표현하면 가시성을 함께 정한다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
- 맵 갱신 함수 안에서 I/O를 하면 그 지연이 락 범위가 된다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
본문
자격증명 해석 — 어댑터의 security configurer → registry.resolve(credentialId, now) → 캐시 유효하면 반환 → 아니면 compute 안에서 provider.resolve + provider.expiresAt → 새 CredentialRuntime 설치 → 옛 것 clear().
시작 검증(1) — starter가 MessageSecurityValidator bean 생성 → validate(profile) 호출 지점은 starter가 소유.
시작 검증(2) — 어댑터 configurer가 BrokerTlsPolicy.validate(profile, enabledProtocols) 호출.
발행 권한 — DefaultMessagePublisher → access.mayPublish(name) → false면 PublishResult(REJECTED, PUBLISH_FORBIDDEN).
CredentialRuntime 참조 위치
:::evidence key="messaging-security-c04" alt="코드베이스에서 CredentialRuntime 를 검색한 출력 12줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="CredentialRuntime 코드베이스 검색 — 12줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::