fix(audit-tier-4): tenant-isolation defense-in-depth
Closes the audit's HIGH §10 + MED §§17–22 isolation footguns. None of these are user-impactful TODAY — every site is preceded by a port- scoped read or pre-validated by ctx.portId — but each is a future- refactor accident waiting to happen, so the SQL itself now pins the tenant boundary: * mergeClients gains a callerPortId option; the route caller passes ctx.portId. removeInterestBerth now requires portId and verifies both the interest and the berth share it before deleting the junction row. All three callers updated. * Six service mutations now scope the WHERE to (id, portId): form-templates update + delete, invoices.detectOverdue per-row update, notifications.markRead, clients.deleteRelationship. company-memberships uses an inArray sub-select against port companies (no port_id column on the table itself), covering updateMembership / endMembership / setPrimary. * Port-scoped file lookups in portal.getDocumentDownloadUrl, reports.getDownloadUrl (file presign), berth-reservations.activate (contractFileId attach guard), and residential.getResidentialInterestById (residentialClient join). Test status: 1168/1168 vitest, tsc clean. Refs: docs/audit-comprehensive-2026-05-05.md HIGH §10 + MED §§17–22 (auditor-B3 Issues 1–5,7). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -563,7 +563,7 @@ export async function updateInterest(
|
||||
addedBy: meta.userId,
|
||||
});
|
||||
} else if (currentBerthId) {
|
||||
await removeInterestBerth(id, currentBerthId);
|
||||
await removeInterestBerth(id, currentBerthId, portId);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -981,7 +981,7 @@ export async function unlinkBerth(id: string, portId: string, meta: AuditMeta) {
|
||||
const oldBerthId = previousPrimary?.berthId ?? null;
|
||||
|
||||
if (oldBerthId) {
|
||||
await removeInterestBerth(id, oldBerthId);
|
||||
await removeInterestBerth(id, oldBerthId, portId);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
const [updated] = await db
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user