Skip to content

HIPAA/marketing compliance document: correct or withdraw pending admin-scoping fix verification (omnibioai-lims#30/#49/#50) #84

Description

@man4ish

What needs to change

Codex produced a HIPAA-compliance / marketing-facing document tonight claiming "Zero cross-organization data leakage (verified via automated tests)." That claim is true, narrowly, for the customer-facing DRF API/app layer in omnibioai-lims (57 real, passing tests: tests/test_org_isolation.py, tests/test_org_isolation_enforcement.py). It does not extend to Django's /admin/ interface, which had zero organization scoping on Project/Sample/SampleAuditLog until tonight — confirmed by live reproduction, not just code-reading.

Status as of tonight:

  • The admin-layer gap is now fixed: omnibioai-lims#49 (branch security/hipaa-django-admin-org-scoping, resolves omnibioai-lims#30), org-scopes ordinary Django staff on Project/Sample/SampleAuditLog, superuser platform-admin access unchanged (documented as intentional). 172 tests passing; live re-verification confirms org-scoped staff blocked from another organization's data, superuser unaffected.
  • omnibioai-lims#50 tracks whether the same gap exists in omnibioai-workbench, omnibioai-studio, and omnibioai-auth's own Django admin surfaces — not yet checked.

The document must not go out to any partner or customer as-is. Whoever holds the actual document (not found as an editable file in this session — it wasn't located in any repo or on the local filesystem despite a full search) needs to either:

  1. Withdraw it until security: enforce model-registry auth in release compose #50's ecosystem-wide sweep is complete, or
  2. Correct it to state explicitly, not silently:
    • The app/API-layer isolation claim, and exactly what it covers (which tests, which routes).
    • That Django admin's data-scoping was found broken tonight (specific models, specific evidence) and has now been fixed in omnibioai-lims (PR feat: publish security audit worker in release compose #49), separately from the API-layer claim above.
    • That the same class of gap has not yet been ruled out in the rest of the ecosystem (omnibioai-lims#50).

Action needed

Point me to the actual document (or paste it) if you want the correction drafted directly; I can't locate or edit a document I never had access to as a file in this session.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions