mirror of
https://github.com/norandom/OpenUltraSAST.git
synced 2026-10-19 21:19:28 +00:00
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5
9a65c998b4
Fourteen specs have accumulated and the roadmap still described a pre-Joern world -- "adjudication is still Python-ast plus a tree-sitter CLI stub", "Joern-as-required deferred" -- which is stale enough to mislead someone reading it to decide what to do next. It is kept as roadmap-2026-09-04.md rather than deleted. **overview.md** is the synthesis above the specs: what the tool is, how one pass works, what has been measured, and what is not true yet. Every number cites a committed artifact. The thesis is stated plainly -- the differentiator is not the dataflow engine, since CodeQL and Semgrep have one and developers do not turn it on, but the rung: a claim you can act on without writing a query, and an explicit admission when the engine could not decide. It says what does not work as clearly as what does. The C story is structurally broken, not undertuned. One language is demonstrated. PHP, Ruby and Go have zero families, so Joern would parse them and the engine would say nothing. The evidence base is two repositories and one has never produced a true positive. Control dependence is unavailable in both CPGs. execution_confirmed has no production caller. And it records the lesson that shaped the current specs: nine defects found by pointing the tool at two real repositories, three of them the same bug in three matchers, with the three gates byte-identical through every fix -- so a corpus of function-level pairs could not have caught any of them. **roadmap.md** is ordered by the standing test, that the tool must find bugs or it is SAST noise. Which gives the ordering principle: make the output worth reading, then make it find more. A better arbiter behind an unreadable report changes nothing, and a second language before the report is fixed doubles the noise. It also says what is NOT being worked and why -- authorization-obligations and reachability-flow-model were largely delivered by other routes and should be reconciled or retired rather than carried as approved-not-started, which misrepresents both. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
75 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
75 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
# Roadmap
|
||
|
||
**Rewritten 2026-09-09.** The previous version (kept as `roadmap-2026-09-04.md`) described a pre-Joern world —
|
||
"adjudication is still Python-`ast` plus a tree-sitter CLI stub", "Joern-as-required deferred". Joern was
|
||
adopted, the model layer was built, wired and measured, and two repositories have been scanned. See
|
||
`overview.md` for what is true today; this is what happens next and in what order.
|
||
|
||
## The one test everything is ordered by
|
||
|
||
> "it must find the bugs, otherwise it's SAST noise. most devs know codeql / semgrep have dataflow
|
||
> capabilities but never use it"
|
||
|
||
So the ordering principle is: **make the output worth reading, then make it find more.** A better arbiter
|
||
behind an unreadable report changes nothing, and a second language before the report is fixed just doubles the
|
||
noise.
|
||
|
||
## Now — make the output worth reading
|
||
|
||
Everything here is in `contributor-scan`, group 2, and all of it is measurable on the two checkouts that exist.
|
||
|
||
1. **2.17 — the model's own suspicion band.** vampi emits 61 sections for 520 lines; 38 are a candidate the
|
||
graph could not decide with a judge's opinion attached. Expected: 61 → ~23. Measure what it hides.
|
||
2. **2.9 — one defect is one finding.** 26 identical rows for one site. Dedupe on the site, keep the strongest
|
||
rung, record `reached_from`.
|
||
3. **2.16 — say what a family cannot decide.** Req 5.6. This is the anti-quiet-failure fix, and it matters
|
||
most for the teaching goal: an LLM handed a silent C scan will fluently explain why the code is fine.
|
||
4. **2.8 — a declared-public endpoint carries no obligation.** Removes both remaining vampi false positives.
|
||
Needs the access level's *provenance*, because for decorator frameworks "public" means "no decorator
|
||
found", which is the bug itself.
|
||
|
||
## Next — make it find more, in the cheapest order
|
||
|
||
5. **5.2 — a pinned vibe-code repository.** The cheapest route to a *second* checkout that can produce a true
|
||
positive, because Python and JavaScript are the two languages whose fact tables are complete. Everything
|
||
downstream is tuned on two repositories until this lands.
|
||
6. **2.15 — a C checkout whose CVE goes through a sink we model.** Decides whether `c/memory` earns its place
|
||
or gets scoped (2.16). libpng cannot answer this; no version of it can.
|
||
7. **5.1 — PHP fact tables, then WordPress.** `php2cpg` exists; our PHP families are empty. Tables first,
|
||
corpus second — the other order produces a confident silence.
|
||
|
||
## Then — close the deferred engine questions
|
||
|
||
8. **2.14 — control dependence.** Absent from both CPGs, so every guard question runs on CFG dominance. Find
|
||
out whether Joern's CDG pass can be applied from the query script and what it costs. If it cannot, that is
|
||
a real bound on what this engine can reason about and should be recorded as one.
|
||
9. **2.13 — a destination allocated to size.** Deliberately blocked on 6, so the rule can be measured for what
|
||
it *silences* as well as what it clears.
|
||
10. **Group 3–4 — ship it.** Contributor output, the Docker image, the memory-family decision, retiring
|
||
`evidence_level` now that the rung carries the meaning.
|
||
|
||
## After — the feedback loop
|
||
|
||
11. **`finding-feedback-loop`** (design generated, awaiting approval). Its ledger and dismissals are useful
|
||
immediately; its *evolution* should not be trusted until step 5 or 6 lands a second true-positive
|
||
checkout. The boundary is fixed: an optimiser may evolve the **question**, never the **facts**.
|
||
|
||
## Not now, and why
|
||
|
||
- **`authorization-obligations`** (24 open tasks, approved) — the dominance arbiter delivered its substance by
|
||
another route. It should be reconciled or retired rather than worked, and carrying it as "approved, not
|
||
started" misrepresents both.
|
||
- **`reachability-flow-model`** (23 open, nothing approved) — largely delivered by adopting Joern. Same
|
||
treatment.
|
||
- **`constrained-detector`** (4 of 20, tasks unapproved) — parked.
|
||
- **More corpus volume.** 198 of 238 OWASP pairs were left unvendored deliberately: volume without
|
||
readability makes every number worse, and the corpus is not the binding constraint. Reachability is.
|
||
- **A second CPG engine, a server mode, an execution rung.** Server mode was measured and declined (6% of a
|
||
scan). The other two have no evidence calling for them yet.
|
||
|
||
## How to know it is working
|
||
|
||
The scoreboard in `overview.md`, and one question: **can a developer run this on a repository they did not
|
||
write and get something they act on?** Today that is true for one Python application and false for one C
|
||
library, and the specs above are ordered by what changes that.
|