docs(security): clarify optional policy gateway boundary - #611
Open
jiezeng2004-design wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
docs(security): clarify optional policy gateway boundary#611jiezeng2004-design wants to merge 3 commits into
jiezeng2004-design wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
Contributor
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughSECURITY.md adds guidance for an optional external policy gateway, clarifies its security boundaries and fail-closed behavior, and updates the document footer to July 2026. ChangesSecurity documentation
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
jiezeng2004-design
changed the title
jiezeng2004-design
marked this pull request as ready for review
July 25, 2026 11:10
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@SECURITY.md`:
- Around line 28-35: Update the external policy gateway guidance to state that
timeouts, errors, and missing policy decisions must fail closed by blocking
forwarding. Preserve the existing distinction between gateway governance and
OS-level containment.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Why
Desktop Commander's current security model correctly distinguishes safety
guardrails from sandboxing. Some deployments also need a deterministic policy
decision, human confirmation, and redacted audit record before a requested tool
call is forwarded.
This documentation describes that optional governance layer without treating it
as a replacement for Desktop Commander guardrails or OS-level isolation. It
also makes the enforcement boundary explicit: only calls routed through the
gateway are governed. Desktop Commander does not require or imply support for
any particular gateway implementation.
This is related to the policy-enforcement discussion in #431, but it does not
claim to implement or close that product-level request.
Validation
git diff --checkRelated: #431
Summary by CodeRabbit