mirror of
https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git
synced 2026-08-06 17:36:53 +01:00
62dabf9a11
The /samples/ top-level tree is replaced with sibling files in each
knowledge-layer folder. An article and its demonstrations now live
side-by-side:
microsoft/knowledge/<domain>/<slug>.md
microsoft/knowledge/<domain>/<slug>.good.al
microsoft/knowledge/<domain>/<slug>.bad.al
Rationale:
- Proximity. An article and its paired samples are one unit; the
filesystem now reflects that.
- Layer ownership. Samples inherit layer precedence for free -- a
/custom/ fork can override an article and its samples atomically,
which the shared /samples/ tree previously made awkward.
- Trivial migration path. Action-skill source globs
(*/knowledge/<domain>/**/*.md) are unchanged; sample discovery is a
sibling-filename lookup.
Changes:
- git mv of all 65 sample files from samples/<domain>/<slug>/{bad,good}.al
to microsoft/knowledge/<domain>/<slug>.{bad,good}.al (history preserved).
- Update See-sample references in all 37 articles that ship samples.
- skills/read.md: replace the no-code-blocks bullet with a pointer to a
new Sample files section that fully specifies the sibling convention,
the kinds (good/bad + forward-compatible), multi-technology rules,
demonstration-only status, and layer-precedence behaviour.
- skills/write.md: update the samples pointer to match.
- README.md: annotate the knowledge tree with the sample sibling shape.
- samples/README.md deleted; content lifted into skills/read.md.
- Both generators (C:\temp\gen_performance_knowledge.py,
C:\temp\gen_security_knowledge.py) updated to emit at the new paths
and to stop writing samples/README.md. Re-running them is idempotent
against the committed layout.
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
29 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
29 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
bc-version: [26..28]
|
|
domain: security
|
|
keywords: [event, publisher, extensibility, var-parameter]
|
|
technologies: [al]
|
|
countries: [w1]
|
|
application-area: [all]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Do not expose sensitive data in event publishers
|
|
|
|
> **Seed article.** Converted from an existing security-review prompt to bootstrap the BCQuality security corpus. Domain stewards should expand, restructure, and refine as needed.
|
|
|
|
## Description
|
|
|
|
Events in AL are extensibility contracts. Every subscriber — third-party, internal, or installed after the fact — receives the full set of event parameters. Parameters that carry secrets, pre-authorization state, or variables the publisher relies on for access control effectively become public, and var-parameters can be mutated by a subscriber to alter publisher behaviour.
|
|
|
|
## Best Practice
|
|
|
|
Design event signatures to carry only the data a subscriber legitimately needs. Do not pass SecretText, credential material, or flags the publisher depends on for access control. If a subscriber needs to veto an action, model it as a separate OnBefore event whose Handled pattern is documented — not as a general-purpose var Boolean callers can flip.
|
|
|
|
See sample: `do-not-expose-sensitive-data-in-event-publishers.good.al`.
|
|
|
|
## Anti Pattern
|
|
|
|
An OnBeforeElevateAccess publisher that exposes `var CanAccess: Boolean` — any subscriber installed on the tenant can flip it to true and escalate. Or a publisher that passes a SecretText parameter it obtained internally, handing it to every subscriber.
|
|
|
|
See sample: `do-not-expose-sensitive-data-in-event-publishers.bad.al`.
|
|
|