mirror of
https://github.com/norandom/OpenUltraSAST.git
synced 2026-10-16 03:49:26 +00:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5
3e1d13e4b6
contributor-scan 2.17, completing Req 5.5. Task 2.11 made static pattern matches proportionate and left the model layer's own suspicions alone, reasoning that a proposer had reasoned about them. That does not survive inspection. A model suspicion is what the enumerator proposed at a site the graph could NOT decide, affirmed by a judge with no coverage there -- and its own rationale says exactly that: "the model resolved no flow here; its sink table may not cover this API". It is a pattern match with an opinion attached, and it reads like a reasoned claim only because a model produced it. vampi 60 findings, 61 sections -> 26, report 1085 lines -> 446 libpng 198 findings, 39 sections -> 30 **What it costs, which is the number that decides whether the rule is right.** For each known vulnerability the recipe declares, take every finding row at its location and ask whether any survives the rule. All three of vampi's -- the SQL injection and both documented BOLAs -- are still found at model_entailed and all three survive. Nothing known is hidden. Three vulnerabilities in one repository is also a statement about how small the evidence base is, and the artifact says so. The obligations checker sits at `suspicion` too and is NOT grouped: its output comes from a structural analysis, an obligated operation with no discharging guard, rather than from a guess. An earlier attempt at this rule filtered on rung alone and would have collapsed it; six tests failed and they were right to. "Pattern matches" is now "Proposed, not corroborated", since it holds two shapes. Model rows group by FAMILY rather than by rule, because their rule is always `model`. Gates byte-identical. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
26 lines
2.3 KiB
JSON
26 lines
2.3 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"generated": "2026-09-09",
|
|
"measured": {
|
|
"libpng": {
|
|
"findings": 198,
|
|
"sections_after_2_11": 39,
|
|
"sections_after_2_17": 30
|
|
},
|
|
"vampi": {
|
|
"findings": 60,
|
|
"report_lines": "1085 -> 446",
|
|
"sections_after": 26,
|
|
"sections_before": 61
|
|
}
|
|
},
|
|
"reading": "Task 2.11 made static pattern matches proportionate and left the model layer's own suspicions alone, on the reasoning that a proposer had reasoned about them. That reasoning does not survive inspection: a model suspicion is what the enumerator proposed at a site the graph could NOT decide, affirmed by a judge with no coverage there. Its own rationale says so -- 'the model resolved no flow here; its sink table may not cover this API'. It is a pattern match with an opinion attached, and it reads like a reasoned claim only because a model produced it.",
|
|
"spec": "contributor-scan 2.17 (Req 5.5) -- the model's own suspicion band",
|
|
"the_section_renamed": "'Pattern matches' became 'Proposed, not corroborated', because it now holds two shapes: a static pattern saying an API is present, and a candidate the model could not decide. Model rows group by FAMILY rather than by rule, since their rule is always `model`.",
|
|
"what_is_not_grouped": "The obligations checker also sits at `suspicion`, and is NOT grouped. Its output comes from a structural analysis -- an obligated operation with no discharging guard -- rather than from a guess. An earlier attempt at this rule filtered on rung alone and would have collapsed it; six tests failed and they were right to.",
|
|
"what_it_costs": {
|
|
"caveat": "Three known vulnerabilities in one repository. The rule would hide a real finding that only ever reached model-suspicion, and no such finding exists in the evidence base -- which is a statement about how small the evidence base is as much as about the rule.",
|
|
"method": "For each known vulnerability the recipe declares, take every finding row at its location and ask whether any survives the rule. If a known vulnerability appeared ONLY at model-suspicion, this rule hides it, and that is the number that decides whether the rule is right.",
|
|
"result": "VAmPI-SQLI, VAmPI-BOLA and VAmPI-BOLA-BOOKS all still found at model_entailed and all three survive the rule. Nothing known is hidden."
|
|
}
|
|
}
|