You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Build a comprehensive Policy-as-Code platform that unifies all access control, authorization, and compliance mechanisms into a single, auditable, version-controlled system. This platform integrates existing policy engines (Cedar, OPA), implements the centralized RBAC/ABAC engine (#2019), and provides compliance automation for FedRAMP, HIPAA, SOC2, and other frameworks.
Why Now?
As ContextForge matures into an enterprise-grade gateway, organizations demand robust, auditable, and compliant access control:
Scattered Access Control: Currently, authorization is spread across RBAC middleware, token scoping, service-layer filters, and pluginsโno single source of truth
Compliance Pressure: Enterprises need demonstrable compliance with FedRAMP, HIPAA, SOC2, PCI-DSSโrequiring centralized policy management and audit trails
Policy Engine Investment: Cedar and OPA plugins exist but aren't integrated into a unified framework with consistent APIs
As a Platform Administrator I want a single interface to manage all policies (RBAC, ABAC, MAC) So that I can define, test, and deploy policies consistently
Acceptance Criteria:
Given I access /admin/policies
When I view the policy dashboard:
Then I see:
- All active policies (Cedar, OPA, native RBAC, MAC)
- Policy status (active, draft, disabled)
- Policy evaluation metrics
- Recent policy changes
And I can create new policies using a visual editor or code
And I can test policies before deployment
And I can rollback to previous policy versions
As a Compliance Officer I want to generate compliance reports for FedRAMP, HIPAA, SOC2 So that I can demonstrate our security controls to auditors
Acceptance Criteria:
Given I need to produce FedRAMP compliance evidence:
When I generate a compliance report:
Then the report includes:
- Access control policy inventory
- Decision audit logs (who accessed what, when)
- Policy change history
- Separation of duties evidence
- Least privilege demonstration
- Incident response logs
And the report is exportable in PDF, CSV, JSON formats
And the report maps to specific FedRAMP controls (AC-2, AC-3, etc.)
US-3: Security Engineer - Test Policy Changes in Sandbox
As a Security Engineer I want to test policy changes in a sandbox before deployment So that I don't accidentally lock out users or create security gaps
Acceptance Criteria:
Given I have a new ABAC policy to deploy:
When I enter the policy testing sandbox:
Then I can:
- Simulate requests from any user/role/context
- See which policies would allow/deny the request
- View the decision explanation (matching rules)
- Test against historical access patterns
- Run regression tests against known scenarios
And the sandbox is isolated from production
And I can promote tested policies to production
As a Security Administrator I want to grant temporary, just-in-time access privileges So that users only have elevated access when needed
Acceptance Criteria:
Given a developer needs temporary admin access for incident response:
When I grant JIT access:
grant_jit_access:
user: developer@example.com
role: incident-responder
duration: 4h
reason: "INC-1234: Production database issue"
approver: security-lead@example.comThen the user receives elevated privileges immediately
And access is automatically revoked after 4 hours
And all actions are logged with enhanced audit detail
And an alert is sent when JIT access is used
US-5: Developer - Understand Why Access Was Denied
As a Developer I want to understand why my access request was denied So that I can request appropriate permissions
Acceptance Criteria:
Given my tool invocation was denied:
When I query the access explanation endpoint:
GET /access/explain?request_id=req-123
Then I receive:
- The specific policy that denied access
- My effective permissions at the time
- What permissions would be required
- How to request access (if applicable)
And sensitive policy details are not leaked
And I can initiate an access request workflow
๐ Architecture
Policy Evaluation Flow
sequenceDiagram
participant Client as Client
participant Gateway as Gateway
participant PDP as Policy Decision Point
participant Cedar as Cedar Engine
participant OPA as OPA Engine
participant MAC as MAC Engine
participant Audit as Audit Logger
participant DB as Policy Store
Client->>Gateway: Request (user, action, resource)
Gateway->>PDP: check_access(subject, action, resource, context)
par Parallel Policy Evaluation
PDP->>Cedar: evaluate(request)
Cedar-->>PDP: CedarDecision
and
PDP->>OPA: evaluate(request)
OPA-->>PDP: OPADecision
and
PDP->>MAC: check_clearance(user, resource)
MAC-->>PDP: MACDecision
end
PDP->>PDP: Combine decisions (AND/OR logic)
PDP->>Audit: log_decision(request, decision, policies)
PDP->>DB: store_decision(audit_record)
alt Access Granted
PDP-->>Gateway: Allow + metadata
Gateway-->>Client: Response
else Access Denied
PDP-->>Gateway: Deny + reason
Gateway-->>Client: 403 Forbidden
end
Loading
Policy Store Schema
-- Policy definitions (version controlled)CREATETABLEpolicies (
id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
name VARCHAR(255) UNIQUE NOT NULL,
version INTEGERNOT NULL DEFAULT 1,
engine VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL, -- cedar | opa | native | mac-- Policy content
policy_code TEXTNOT NULL, -- Cedar/Rego/DSL code
policy_config JSONB,
-- Metadata
description TEXT,
author VARCHAR(255),
tags JSONB,
-- Status
status VARCHAR(30) DEFAULT 'draft', -- draft | active | disabled | archived-- Timestamps
created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
updated_at TIMESTAMP,
activated_at TIMESTAMP,
INDEX idx_name (name),
INDEX idx_engine (engine),
INDEX idx_status (status)
);
-- Policy version historyCREATETABLEpolicy_versions (
id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
policy_id UUID REFERENCES policies(id),
version INTEGERNOT NULL,
policy_code TEXTNOT NULL,
policy_config JSONB,
change_reason TEXT,
changed_by VARCHAR(255),
created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
UNIQUE(policy_id, version)
);
-- Policy decision audit logCREATETABLEpolicy_decisions (
id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
timestampTIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
request_id VARCHAR(100),
-- Subject
subject_type VARCHAR(50), -- user | token | agent | service
subject_id VARCHAR(255),
subject_email VARCHAR(255),
subject_roles JSONB,
subject_teams JSONB,
subject_clearance INTEGER,
-- Action & Resource
action VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
resource_type VARCHAR(100),
resource_id VARCHAR(255),
resource_server VARCHAR(255),
-- Decision
decision VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL, -- allow | deny
decision_reason TEXT,
matching_policies JSONB, -- [{id, name, engine, result}]-- Context
context JSONB, -- ip, time, mfa, custom attributes-- Metadata
duration_ms INTEGER,
gateway_node VARCHAR(100),
INDEX idx_timestamp (timestamp),
INDEX idx_subject_email (subject_email),
INDEX idx_decision (decision),
INDEX idx_resource_type (resource_type)
);
-- JIT access grantsCREATETABLEjit_access_grants (
id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
user_email VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
granted_role VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
granted_permissions JSONB,
-- Approval
reason TEXTNOT NULL,
approved_by VARCHAR(255),
approved_at TIMESTAMP,
-- Duration
starts_at TIMESTAMPNOT NULL,
expires_at TIMESTAMPNOT NULL,
-- Status
status VARCHAR(30) DEFAULT 'pending', -- pending | active | expired | revoked
revoked_by VARCHAR(255),
revoked_at TIMESTAMP,
revoke_reason TEXT,
-- Audit
created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
INDEX idx_user_email (user_email),
INDEX idx_status (status),
INDEX idx_expires_at (expires_at)
);
-- Compliance report metadataCREATETABLEcompliance_reports (
id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
framework VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL, -- fedramp | hipaa | soc2 | pci-dss
period_start DATENOT NULL,
period_end DATENOT NULL,
-- Content
controls_evaluated INTEGER,
controls_passed INTEGER,
controls_failed INTEGER,
findings JSONB,
-- Storage
report_path VARCHAR(500),
-- Metadata
generated_by VARCHAR(255),
generated_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
INDEX idx_framework (framework),
INDEX idx_generated_at (generated_at)
);
๐๏ธ Epic: Policy-as-Code Security & Compliance Automation Platform
Goal
Build a comprehensive Policy-as-Code platform that unifies all access control, authorization, and compliance mechanisms into a single, auditable, version-controlled system. This platform integrates existing policy engines (Cedar, OPA), implements the centralized RBAC/ABAC engine (#2019), and provides compliance automation for FedRAMP, HIPAA, SOC2, and other frameworks.
Why Now?
As ContextForge matures into an enterprise-grade gateway, organizations demand robust, auditable, and compliant access control:
By building a Policy-as-Code platform, ContextForge becomes a policy-enforced gateway where every action is authorized, logged, and auditable.
๐ฏ Platform Components
๐ User Stories
US-1: Platform Admin - Unified Policy Management
As a Platform Administrator
I want a single interface to manage all policies (RBAC, ABAC, MAC)
So that I can define, test, and deploy policies consistently
Acceptance Criteria:
US-2: Compliance Officer - Generate Compliance Reports
As a Compliance Officer
I want to generate compliance reports for FedRAMP, HIPAA, SOC2
So that I can demonstrate our security controls to auditors
Acceptance Criteria:
US-3: Security Engineer - Test Policy Changes in Sandbox
As a Security Engineer
I want to test policy changes in a sandbox before deployment
So that I don't accidentally lock out users or create security gaps
Acceptance Criteria:
US-4: Security Admin - Implement Just-in-Time Access
As a Security Administrator
I want to grant temporary, just-in-time access privileges
So that users only have elevated access when needed
Acceptance Criteria:
US-5: Developer - Understand Why Access Was Denied
As a Developer
I want to understand why my access request was denied
So that I can request appropriate permissions
Acceptance Criteria:
๐ Architecture
Policy Evaluation Flow
sequenceDiagram participant Client as Client participant Gateway as Gateway participant PDP as Policy Decision Point participant Cedar as Cedar Engine participant OPA as OPA Engine participant MAC as MAC Engine participant Audit as Audit Logger participant DB as Policy Store Client->>Gateway: Request (user, action, resource) Gateway->>PDP: check_access(subject, action, resource, context) par Parallel Policy Evaluation PDP->>Cedar: evaluate(request) Cedar-->>PDP: CedarDecision and PDP->>OPA: evaluate(request) OPA-->>PDP: OPADecision and PDP->>MAC: check_clearance(user, resource) MAC-->>PDP: MACDecision end PDP->>PDP: Combine decisions (AND/OR logic) PDP->>Audit: log_decision(request, decision, policies) PDP->>DB: store_decision(audit_record) alt Access Granted PDP-->>Gateway: Allow + metadata Gateway-->>Client: Response else Access Denied PDP-->>Gateway: Deny + reason Gateway-->>Client: 403 Forbidden endPolicy Store Schema
๐ Implementation Tasks
Phase 1: Foundation & Unified PDP
Create Unified Policy Decision Point
PolicyDecisionPointinterfacePolicy Store
Phase 2: Audit & Logging
Decision Audit Logging
Audit Dashboard
Phase 3: Compliance Automation
Compliance Report Generator
Control Evidence
Phase 4: Policy Testing & Sandbox
Policy Testing Sandbox
Policy Promotion Workflow
Phase 5: Just-in-Time Access
Phase 6: Admin UI Integration
Policy Management UI
Compliance UI
โ๏ธ Configuration Example
โ Success Criteria
๐ Definition of Done
make verifychecks๐ Additional Notes
๐น Policy Engines: The platform supports multiple policy engines that can work independently or in combination:
๐น Compliance Frameworks Supported:
๐น Zero Trust Architecture: This platform implements Zero Trust principles:
๐น Existing Plugins Integration: This epic integrates with:
๐ Related Issues
Core Components (Part of this Epic)
Security Posture (Related Epic)
๐ References