What This Category of Data Looks Like
Data for this category primarily originates from source code repositories, dependency manifests, Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tools, and public vulnerability databases, and is updated per project version or single audit task. Daily produced documents include code audit reports, vulnerability proof materials, remediation recommendation documents, and retest records. A single report typically includes project identifiers, vulnerability location information, risk level labels, and remediation guidance. Core data fields include project ID, code snippets, vulnerability IDs, remediation status, and other related items.
What Constraints Do These Characteristics Impose on Permission and Data Isolation
Access permissions for source code repositories and vulnerability databases must be tied to project dimensions. Different audit teams cannot access code and vulnerability data belonging to other projects without authorization. Audit reports updated per project version must match the current teamId to avoid cross-team data confusion. For internal ticket Q&A scenarios, the operational scope of on-call staff must be limited to their assigned project groups. They cannot view audit data for unrelated projects. At the same time, the circulation of retest records and remediation recommendations must align with the current team’s permission scope to prevent sensitive security information leaks.
How to Configure Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
teamId | Bind to the team identifier of the current audit project | Audit data is stored per project dimension, must match team permission scope |
tmbId | Bind to the identity identifier of the currently logged-in user | Distinguish operational permissions of different on-call staff to prevent unauthorized access |
| Data Isolation Scope | Divide permission domains by project group, only allow access to audit data within 1000 MB of assigned projects | Daily audit data is updated per project version, cross-project access will cause data confusion |
| Session Permission Verification | Verify the matching of teamId and tmbId for each conversation request | Internal ticket Q&A scenarios require ensuring the operator matches the permission domain |
| Operation Log Retention | Retain permission operation logs for 180 days | Meet traceability requirements for security audits, facilitate troubleshooting of unauthorized operations |
Three Common Misconfigurations
- Phenomenon: When different on-call staff access global variables of the same workflow, cross-project confusion occurs in the obtained audit data. Cause: Team permissions are not bound via
teamId, the global variable scope is not divided by project, causing data interference between different teams. - Phenomenon: After switching teams, the team data returned by the tokenLogin interface is not updated synchronously, leading to subsequent permission verification failures. Cause: The returned team data is not bound and stored with the current user's
tmbId, and the permission domain configuration of the session is not updated in real time. - Phenomenon: During internal ticket Q&A, after a user without permission views a conversation record, the interface displays "No permission to operate this conversation record" and the prompt cannot be dismissed. Cause: The permission verification logic only intercepts the operation, and silent handling for no permission scenarios is not configured, so the default error copy is thrown directly.
How to Confirm Configuration Is Correct
- Users log in to accounts with different
teamIdvalues, attempt to access audit data for unassigned projects, and confirm that the corresponding content cannot be viewed. - After team switching, the tokenLogin interface is called, and the returned team data is verified to match the current account's
tmbId. - An internal ticket Q&A is initiated, the conversation interface for users without permission is checked, and confirmation is made that the corresponding prompt or silent handling is displayed according to the configuration.
- Permission operation logs are reviewed, and confirmation is made that the retention period meets the configured requirements, with all permission changes having corresponding records.
- Configuration item parameters are verified to be correctly saved in the system settings under FastGPT v4.17.0.
Note: The configuration values listed above are common starting points, and should be evaluated 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.