What This Category of Data Looks Like
Code security auditing data comes from project source code repositories, third-party dependency lists, static code scanning tools, and public vulnerability databases. Daily produced documents include code audit reports, vulnerability proof documents, repair recommendation documents, and retest records. Each document is associated with the version identifier of the corresponding project. The data update rhythm is adjusted according to project version iterations or security retest cycles, usually once per version or per project. Document fields include vulnerability severity, associated code line numbers, attack path descriptions, repair solutions, and retest results. There is no unified fixed unit, and content is only labeled in accordance with security audit specifications.
What Constraints These Characteristics Impose on the "Sharing and Embedding" Link
Documents for code security auditing are mostly structured security reports and are updated frequently with project versions. When embedding and sharing, external knowledge bases or workflows are required to synchronize the latest audit data to ensure that loaded content matches the target project. Data sources include third-party dependencies and public vulnerability databases. Embedding scenarios need to restrict sensitive information leakage, so content filtering rules must be configured. Since audit reports include details such as code line numbers and attack paths, unauthorized access must be restricted after embedding. Improper configuration may allow unauthorized users to obtain sensitive security information, leading to supply chain risks. In addition, the data volume of a single shared audit document is large, so resource usage after embedding must be restricted to prevent impact on the overall performance of the customer's system. If loading timeouts are not configured properly, customers may fail to obtain repair recommendations in a timely manner, leading to high-risk vulnerabilities being deployed. Unlike the pure tool output of static code scanning, the audit content of this category includes manually reviewed business logic and attack path details. Structured text format must be retained during embedding to ensure complete information.
How to Set the Configurations
The following configurations apply to FastGPT v4.17.0. Some configurations are only supported in the commercial edition.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Sharing entry shareId | Copy the full share link generated by the system; do not replace the identifier manually | Identifies the sharing entry; code security audit business records and data permissions still need to be handled by external systems |
| Share link validity period | Test starting point: 7 days; adjust based on actual code security audit collaboration cycles and revocation requirements | Verify availability within the validity period and access behavior after expiration; this value is not an official default or industry statistic |
| QPM | Test starting point: 20 requests per user per minute; adjust based on actual load | Restricts access frequency for a single user; needs to be verified combined with request logs and actual load |
| Identity verification | When identity permission requirements exist, first verify commercial edition capabilities and the uid returned by the third-party identity service | Holding a share link does not equate to having business data permissions; third-party identity and data scope must be verified separately |
| Referenced content display | Select display configurations for snippets, full text, or original text based on the sensitivity of code security audit materials | Check displayed content within authorized data ranges; do not use hidden interfaces as a substitute for data permission control |
| Conversation record verification | Test example: Prepare 10 code security audit Q&A samples, check them in the same browser and another device respectively | Anonymous records rely on browser local identity; retention cannot be guaranteed across devices or after cache clearing |
Three Common Mistakes
- Sharing entries related to code security auditing fail to open. First verify the full system-generated link and its validity period, then check browser request statuses. Do not manually replace
shareId. - The visible scope of code security auditing data does not match expectations. Verify third-party identity verification results, workflow request parameters, and external system data permissions separately. The sharing entry identifier itself does not provide business authorization.
- The same code security auditing Q&A is not visible on another device. For anonymous scenarios, first check device, browser, and local identity status. Record retention cannot be guaranteed across devices or after cache clearing; do not use this phenomenon alone to determine a service anomaly.
How to Confirm Configurations Are Properly Set
- Copy the embedded code and paste it into a test page, check if the chat window related to code security auditing for the corresponding project loads normally.
- Test different host page layouts to confirm that the embedded window is not overwritten or truncated by page styles.
- Simulate an unauthorized access scenario to confirm that users who have not passed third-party identity verification cannot view the embedded audit-related content (commercial edition support).
- Refresh the embedded page multiple times to confirm that the loading status is stable, with no frequent timeouts or loading failures.
The values given are common starting points and should be measured against the reader's own samples.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-10-19.