Architecture Reference

Appearance

Application Security ​

Application Security Graphics Coverage ​

Primary chapter graphic: Cross-Site Scripting Attack Paths, SQL Injection Attack Patterns. Accepted graphics: 2. Reviewed non-signal pages: 1. Open graphics in review: 0. QA status lives in graphics audit and visual review ledger.

Corpus pages: p. 55, p. 253, p. 295, p. 322, p. 341-342 Coverage: 6 pages; low-confidence extraction ranges: p. 322

This chapter is part of Marius's owned architecture build corpus. The text routes decisions; durable implementation signal is carried by accepted graphics, reviewed non-signal decisions, and the linked QA audit.

Chapter Visuals ​

Accepted graphics carry the canonical design signal for this chapter. Each selected source page is either accepted as a graphic or explicitly marked non-signal in the source-faithful ledger. Review and QA state live in visual inventory, visual review ledger, and graphics audit.

Cross-Site Scripting Attack Paths ​

Cross-Site Scripting Attack Paths

SQL Injection Attack Patterns ​

SQL Injection Attack Patterns

Open Review Queue ​

  • none

Reviewed Non-Signal Pages ​

  • Application Security: Topic + Database Map: source p. 253; batch 27; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json

Use When ​

  • User input, credentials, private data, or public endpoints create abuse paths.

Avoid When ​

  • The change is fully offline and handles no untrusted input.

Core Model ​

  • Security is a set of boundary checks around input, identity, data access, execution, and output.
  • Prefer explicit ownership over accidental coupling. Every boundary should say who owns correctness, cost, data, recovery, and change.
  • Use corpus page pointers for inspection, and keep the chapter notes focused on reusable design decisions.

Implementation Guidance ​

  • Validate input shape, encode output by context, parameterize queries, and store secrets outside logs and code.
  • Write the smallest useful design note: purpose, inputs, outputs, state, failure behavior, observability, and rollback.
  • Choose the first implementation that can be tested against the real workflow without hiding a known production risk.

Tradeoffs ​

  • Central controls reduce repeated mistakes, but sensitive flows still need local tests.
  • Centralization reduces duplicated work but can become a bottleneck when every team needs exceptions.
  • Specialized infrastructure helps at scale, but it must earn its operational cost.

Failure Modes ​

  • Escaped content is safe in one context and unsafe when reused in another.
  • The diagram shows boxes but not ownership, retry behavior, data freshness, or user-visible failure.
  • The system has no proof path for the highest-risk assumption.

Decision Checklist ​

  • Add tests for injection, cross-site scripting, authorization bypass, replay, and secret leakage.
  • Name the owner, source of truth, timeout, retry policy, and evidence that the path works.
  • Add one regression check for the failure mode most likely to recur.

Neutral Automation Examples ​

  • A form intake service stores raw submissions separately from sanitized display fields.
  • A neutral internal automation starts with fixtures, then adds credentials, permissions, and production scheduling only after the boundary is tested.
  • A customer-facing workflow keeps irreversible actions behind explicit approval until metrics show it is safe to automate further.