What the Data for This Category Looks Like
This category's data primarily comes from WAF, IDS, firewalls, and threat intelligence platforms. Data updates occur daily or when triggered by protection events. Daily produced documents include rule change tickets, intercept logs, false positive analysis reports, and policy rollback records. Document fields typically include rule unique identifier, effective end time, intercept threshold, false positive sample ID, rollback operator, and others. Some fields must match the native format requirements of protection devices, and there is no unified global field standard.
Constraints on Forms and Interactions
Data sources include multiple security devices. Forms must support field format adaptation for different devices to avoid format conflicts during cross-device synchronization. Daily or event-triggered data updates require external business systems or subsequent workflow nodes to implement real-time verification logic. This ensures submitted rule parameters match the current device's operating status. Daily documents have many fields and require association with historical records. External business systems or subsequent workflow nodes must provide a historical data quick fill module. This reduces repeated data entry, especially for the most time-consuming false positive sample analysis process. Errors in protection policy changes directly impact business operations. External business systems or subsequent workflow nodes must add a double confirmation interaction step to reduce incorrect submission risks. Different roles' operation permissions must be strictly differentiated by external business systems. This prevents unauthorized personnel from modifying core protection rules.
Configuration Settings
The following configurations are adapted for FastGPT v4.17.0, for the security product rule operation document drafting scenario. The formInput node only collects user input content. Field format adaptation for different security devices must be implemented by external business systems or subsequent workflow nodes.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Approach | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Form Input Node formInput | Test example: Select 3 fields from security product rule operation fields as required inputs. Actual fields are determined by the task | This node collects user input. Required items must be checked for interaction status to avoid subsequent nodes failing to receive complete input |
User Selection Node userSelect | Test example: Set 2 business options, check corresponding branches one by one | This node handles user selection. Queries and filtering of security product rule operation related records must be implemented by subsequent interfaces or external systems |
| Field Passing After Submission | Test example: Prepare 10 security product rule operation input samples, covering full completion, missing required items, and canceled operations | Compare input and node output to verify whether subsequent nodes receive corresponding fields. Result thresholds are determined by actual tasks |
| External Implementation Item: (External System/Subsequent Node) Historical Data Fill Threshold | Must be implemented separately by external systems. Last 30 days of rule change records | Matches the update frequency of daily documents, covers recently used rule configurations. Must be configured by external business systems or subsequent workflow nodes |
| External Implementation Item: (External System/Subsequent Node) Real-Time Verification Timeout Threshold | Must be implemented separately by external systems. 800 milliseconds | Matches the response rhythm of protection events, avoids long waits that affect operational efficiency. Must be configured by external business systems or subsequent workflow nodes |
| External Implementation Item: (External System/Subsequent Node) Double Confirmation Interaction Trigger Condition | Must be implemented separately by external systems. Enabled when submitting core protection rule changes | Matches the impact of protection policy change errors, reduces the probability of incorrect operations. Must be configured by external business systems or subsequent workflow nodes |
Three Common Mistakes
- Phenomenon: After rule matching logic is configured, "contains" and "ends with" rules trigger the IF branch, while "equals" and "starts with" trigger the ELSE branch, which does not match expected behavior. Reason: This issue stems from native rule configuration settings on the security device. Follow the security device's rule matching priority to set the interaction order, prevent matching logic from being overwritten by earlier rules.
- Phenomenon: The form input node does not support configuring numerical range selection, only allows preset discrete options. Reason: Numerical range input configuration must be implemented by external business systems or subsequent workflow nodes. FastGPT's native form input node only supports preset discrete options.
- Phenomenon: The user input module cannot directly bind associated fields of rule change tickets, so model parameters entered by users cannot be synchronized to business documents. Reason: Cross-document field association logic must be implemented by external business systems or subsequent workflow nodes. FastGPT's form input node only collects input content.
How to Verify Successful Configuration
- Submit a test rule change, check whether external business systems or subsequent workflow nodes automatically fill in historical configuration parameters from the last 30 days.
- Simulate a protection event, check whether real-time verification by external business systems or subsequent workflow nodes returns results within 800 milliseconds.
- Log in as a regular operation role, confirm that external business systems or subsequent workflow nodes restrict regular operation roles from modifying rule configuration items with administrator permissions.
- Configure security device matching rules, test whether branch logic for different trigger conditions matches expected behavior.
The values provided are common starting points and should be validated against the operator's own test 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.