Repository navigation
Payments security hardening #706
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
65d59e3
fix(payments): make configured user_id authoritative in agent tools
leewc 90f16cd
fix(payments): gate content-inferred 402 and add pre-sign policy (Lan…
leewc 24e4db5
style(payments): apply ruff format
leewc df42df5
fix(payments): close pre-sign policy fail-open gaps (review)
leewc File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This lands on the shared config. Line 50 says it's used by both the Strands plugin and the LangGraph middleware, and
__post_init__validates it for both. Butgrep -rn pre_sign_policy src/only hitsconfig.pyandlanggraph/middleware.py. Strands signs in_process_payment_required_requestatstrands/plugin.py:490, which never reads the policy.So a Strands integrator sets a recipient allowlist, gets no error and no warning, and gets no enforcement. Verified: a deny-all policy on a Strands plugin still returns
{'X-PAYMENT': 'signed'}.The docstring compounds it.
allow_unmarked_402_detectionis marked "(LangGraph only)" on line 102. This one says "the single signing chokepoint ... every detection path" with no scope qualifier, so the docs tell the customer it covers both paths.Two options. Call the same gate from
strands/plugin.py:466, which is about 8 lines lifted verbatim. Or raise in__post_init__when the policy is set on a config headed for the Strands plugin. Accepting it silently is the one option I'd rule out, since a control that reports success and does nothing is worse on a money path than no control.