Files
atomic-design-poc/docs/project/archive/backlog/WP-57-openzaak-least-privilege-scopes.md
T
ehoandClaude Opus 5 12f17d9d73 docs: archive the finished backlogs (RD-30)
Two backlog trees are complete: `docs/project/backlog/` (75 files, every
WP done) and `docs/project/refactor-backlog-setup/` (the arc before it).
Move both under `docs/project/archive/` with `git mv`, so history stays
intact through `git log --follow`. `SHOWCASE-ROADMAP.md` moves with them,
because it points at the now-archived backlog README.

Add `docs/project/archive/README.md`. It states that these trees are
historical and names the two directories that are still live.

Repoint every inbound reference named in RD-30's Files table: CLAUDE.md,
the root README, both backend READMEs, `LetterHtml.cs`, `a11y.mdx`, the
`document-feature` and `new-ssp` skills, and the readable-codebase PLAN,
README, and RD-19 ticket. Fix two upward-relative links inside the moved
WP files (WP-68, WP-69) that gained a directory level and would otherwise
break. Repoint `.prettierignore`'s two agent-prompt exclusions to their
new path, so prettier keeps leaving those files' exact wording alone.

Mark RD-30 done and check off its acceptance criteria; flip its README
row to done.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-08 23:00:38 +02:00

105 lines
5.0 KiB
Markdown

# WP-57 — Least-privilege client scopes
Status: done
Phase: 10 — OpenZaak production hardening
## Why
The harness's OpenZaak client is granted `heeft_alle_autorisaties: true` in
`setup_configuration/data.yaml` — acceptable for a disposable test rig, wrong for anything
closer to production, where the BFF's client should hold only the Autorisaties it actually
exercises.
## Read first
- `backend/openzaak/setup_configuration/data.yaml`
- `backend/src/BigRegister.Api/Zgw/OpenZaakZaakSource.cs` and `OpenZaakDocumentSource.cs`
(the actual ZGW endpoints/verbs called)
## Decisions (pre-made, don't relitigate)
- Scope precisely to what the BFF calls today: zaken (aanmaken, bijwerken, lezen),
statussen (aanmaken), rollen (aanmaken), documenten/zaakinformatieobjecten (aanmaken,
lezen) — enumerate exactly at kickoff from the client code, don't guess broader.
- No wildcard/all-scope grant in any environment beyond the pre-WP-56 disposable dev rig.
## Files
- `backend/openzaak/setup_configuration/data.yaml` (Autorisaties block)
- `backend/openzaak/README.md`
## Steps
1. Grep `OpenZaakZaakSource.cs` and `OpenZaakDocumentSource.cs` for every ZGW
endpoint/verb called.
2. Replace `heeft_alle_autorisaties: true` with an explicit `autorisaties` list matching
exactly that set.
3. Re-run the full integration suite against the narrowed client; add any scope a 403
surfaces.
## Acceptance criteria
- [x] Client config has no wildcard/all-scopes grant.
- [x] `OpenZaakIntegrationTests` (WP-54) pass unchanged against the narrowed client.
## What actually happened
`vng_api_common`'s `ApplicatieConfigurationModel` (the class backing
`setup_configuration`'s `vng_api_common_applicaties` step, read from the installed package
inside the `openzaak/open-zaak:1.29.1` image) only has fields for
`uuid`/`client_ids`/`label`/`heeft_alle_autorisaties` — there is no YAML field for granular
`autorisaties` at all. So `data.yaml` now sets `heeft_alle_autorisaties: false` (both the dev
harness and the prod template), which leaves `bigregister-test` with **zero** Autorisaties
until something else grants them.
That "something else" can't be the JWT-authenticated Autorisaties REST API — a zero-scope
client can't grant itself scope over an API gated by scope (confirmed from
`ApplicatieViewSet.required_scopes`: `update`/`partial_update` need
`autorisaties.bijwerken`). `bootstrap-catalogus.sh` grants the scopes directly via the ORM
instead (`docker compose exec web python manage.py shell`, workdir `/app/src`) — no
JWT/REST layer involved, so no circularity. Two grants, both idempotent (delete-then-create):
- `ztc`: `catalogi.lezen` + `catalogi.schrijven` — granted up front (no zaaktype dependency).
Only `catalogi.schrijven` is provisioning-only; the BFF itself only ever reads Catalogi.
- `zrc`: `zaken.aanmaken` + `zaken.bijwerken` + `zaken.lezen`, scoped to the one zaaktype
(`zaaktype=<ZT-HERREG url>`, `max_vertrouwelijkheidaanduiding=openbaar` — both fields are
_required_ by OpenZaak's `AutorisatieValidator` for any `zaken.*` scope) — granted once
`zaaktype_url` is known, right after the zaaktype is created/resolved.
Reading the actual `RolViewSet`/`StatusViewSet`/`ZaakInformatieObjectViewSet`
`required_scopes` (not just the scope docstrings, which are aspirational/descriptive) showed
the decision text's "statussen (aanmaken), rollen (aanmaken)" don't map to separate OpenZaak
scopes — `zaken.aanmaken` alone (OR'd against alternatives) already covers the first status
and the initiator rol; there is no `rollen.aanmaken` scope. `documenten`/`zaakinformatieobjecten`
scope was **not** granted: `Zgw:InformatieobjecttypeUrls` is empty in `appsettings.json`, so
`OpenZaakDocumentSource.Upload` can't function in this harness regardless of scope (throws
before any HTTP call) — nothing to scope precisely to yet. Left as a documented follow-up
(the script would also need to seed an `informatieobjecttype` to have something concrete to
scope `documenten.aanmaken` to).
Verified for real: `down -v` fresh volume → `up -d``bootstrap-catalogus.sh` (all
"created", scopes granted, `heeft_alle_autorisaties: False` confirmed via `manage.py shell`)
`dotnet test --filter Category=Integration` green → reran `bootstrap-catalogus.sh` again
under the now-narrowed client (all "exists", scopes re-granted idempotently, no 403s) →
confirmed the narrowing is real, not just untested, by DELETEing the seeded zaak with a
hand-rolled JWT for this client: 403 `permission_denied` (zaak deletion needs
`zaken.verwijderen`/`zaken.geforceerd-bijwerken`, neither granted).
## Verification
`cd backend && dotnet test --filter Category=Integration` against the harness with the
narrowed client.
## Out of scope
Rotating/expiring the client credential itself — defer until multi-tenant/production ops
actually need it.
## Risks
An overlooked scope only surfaces as a runtime 403 against a real instance — mitigated by
running the full integration suite, which already exercises every current call path
(WP-54).
Depends on: WP-56 (provisioning mechanism this scopes down).