Skip to content

Security and compliance

Implemented controls, local evidence and pending checks. The scope of each claim must be reviewed before admitting real data or acting.

Evidence and scope

What has been checked and what remains

A scope register based on local project checks. It is not a current operational measurement and does not establish deployed controls, certification or an independent report.

Register date:

  • Tested locally

    Access and data isolation

    Local tests checked tenant membership, roles and row-isolation policies in PostgreSQL.

    Pending: check effective identities and permissions in the hosted environment.

    Read evidence and limits
  • Tested locally

    Approval bound to the plan

    Local integration checks the signed diff and WebAuthn flow with a virtual test authenticator.

    Pending: personal diff review, a real key and approval by an identified person.

    Read evidence and limits
  • Tested locally

    Audit integrity

    The chain verifier and write restrictions were checked in the local environment.

    Pending: S3 retention, effective Object Lock, completeness, backups and a measured restore.

    Read evidence and limits
  • Designed / implemented

    Separation of responsibilities

    The architecture and manifests separate analysis, decision and execution through services and identities.

    Pending: verify network boundaries, denied access and actual permissions in the authorized deployment.

    Read evidence and limits
  • Designed / implemented

    Supply-chain controls

    The pipeline configures scanners, locked dependencies, artifact signing and provenance.

    Pending: review checks for the same commit and verify signing and admission of each published artifact.

    Read evidence and limits
  • Operational validation pending

    Operations and recovery

    Availability, recovery and response objectives need measurements and responsible people in the deployed environment.

    Pending: load, delivered alerts, a restore drill, evaluation of the real model and independent review.

    Read evidence and limits

A person must validate the evidence and actual deployment before admitting real data or acting. An automated result and register date do not replace that decision.

Non-negotiable principles

  1. Execution checks an approval bound to the signed plan. A person must review evidence and approve before acting; an automated test does not establish that review.

  2. The architecture separates analysis, decision and execution through services and identities. Effective network and permission separation must be verified for each deployment.

  3. The design treats external content as untrusted data. Defenses and evaluations must be tested again with the providers and models intended for use.

  4. Least privilege and short-lived credentials are deployment objectives. No absence of persistent secrets is asserted for environments that have not been inventoried and validated.

  5. The audit chain supports integrity verification. Retention, Object Lock protection, backups and restoration require operational checks.

Threat model

The repository contains a threat model and control tests. Results have a specific scope; they do not prove an absolute absence of vulnerabilities or replace a pentest or human review.

Our own supply chain

The project configures scanners, locked dependencies, signing and provenance controls. Results for the same commit and release artifacts must be checked; no SLSA level or effective image admission in a hosted environment is established here.

Inventory metadata and authorized file reads

Inventory uses readers limited to metadata. Preparing the demo's exact signed diff also requires explicitly authorizing a read of the allowlisted package.json file in the sandbox repository. That source is held privately with restricted access. A person must validate scope and evidence, and approve before acting.

Responsible disclosure

The procedure and response objectives are documented in SECURITY.md. Operational capacity and the responsible channel must be validated before promising response times. SECURITY.md

Read the threat model

Compliance mapping and preparation

These references guide control preparation. No ISO 27001 certification or issued SOC 2 report is asserted. A person must validate the scope, evidence and deployed controls; that review remains pending.

  • GDPR · 21.719

    GDPR and Chile's Ley 21.719: references for reviewing processing, retention and erasure with the people responsible for privacy. Applicability and compliance require human validation.

  • ISO 27001

    ISO 27001:2022 A.8.8: a reference for mapping technical vulnerability management evidence. The mapping requires human review and does not establish certification.

  • SOC 2

    SOC 2 preparation: criteria mapping and human evidence review remain pending. “python -m centinela_audit.cli verify” checks audit-chain integrity; it does not replace an independent evaluation of the controls.