Claude Fable 5
919201d9b0
All checks were successful
CI / Lint, typecheck, test (pull_request) Successful in 6m56s
CI / Build container images (pull_request) Successful in 1m23s
CI / Auth e2e pack (pull_request) Successful in 8m57s
CI / Import/export fidelity gate (pull_request) Successful in 1m1s
CD / Build and push images (push) Successful in 22s
CD / Deploy to Test (push) Successful in 13s
CD / Smoke tests against Test (push) Successful in 1m17s
CD / Promote to Int (push) Successful in 12s
CI / Lint, typecheck, test (push) Successful in 5m48s
CI / Build container images (push) Has been skipped
CI / Auth e2e pack (push) Successful in 8m13s
CI / Import/export fidelity gate (push) Successful in 58s
docs/vs-nfd/80-grundschutz-mapping.md against the Edition 2023 texts of both building blocks (fetched from the BSI single PDFs, edition and retrieval date stated; the dropped requirements of APP.3.1 are listed as such, CON.11.1's 18 requirements are all Basis). Every requirement classified as product / operator / n.a.: product rows point at code, configuration and tests (auth+rate limits, upload controls, security headers with the honest HSTS-at-the-proxy split, marking = the whole of M26 under CON.11.1.A7 incl. the answered does-the-marking-carry-a- security-function question); operator rows say what we hand over (copy list, procedures, network plan, SBOMs); n.a. rows are argued via the delimitation statement (no §52 security functions, no built-in remote maintenance). Open requirements point at their closing issues (M27/M28/M29/M32), so the document doubles as the gap list; the never-scheduled external pentest is stated honestly. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| architecture | ||
| de | ||
| developer | ||
| manual | ||
| operations | ||
| self-hosting | ||
| vs-nfd | ||
| features.md | ||