Zum Hauptinhalt springen

Security and Compliance

Use this page when you need the main public-safe explanation of Helpifyr security posture, permissions model, secrecy boundaries, and compliance-facing readback.

When to use this page​

  • You are evaluating whether the platform security model is acceptable.
  • You need the primary public-safe security overview before product-specific deep pages.
  • You need security language that remains technically precise without exposing secrets or internal-only controls.

Prerequisites​

  • You have read Secure and Govern.
  • You know whether your concern is access control, secrets, auditability, or compliance posture.

Security model​

The current public-safe model is built around:

  • no secrets in Git
  • explicit auth boundaries
  • fail-closed automation and signoff
  • read-first verification before destructive action
  • review-gated handling of risky workflows

Architecture / Flow​

Step-by-step procedure​

1. Start with the relevant access boundary​

Use Identity and Access Boundaries when the question is about who may read or write a surface.

2. Keep the secret model narrow​

Public docs posture:

  • secrets must not live in Git
  • repository metadata is not a secret source
  • host-local or environment-injected secret handling remains the expected pattern

3. Verify security posture before action​

Illustrative reads:

GET /api/v1/security/readiness
GET /api/v1/signoff/readiness
GET /api/v1/platform/services

4. Separate compliance-facing explanation from internal controls​

Public docs may explain:

  • control objectives
  • verification posture
  • trust boundaries
  • review and signoff expectations

Public docs should not disclose:

  • secret values
  • internal-only bypass paths
  • sensitive operational procedures that widen attack surface

Verification​

This page is being applied correctly when:

  1. the security concern is classified
  2. public-safe and operator-only detail remain separated
  3. readiness and signoff posture are part of the answer

Common failure modes​

Explaining compliance as policy text only​

Problem:

  • the docs do not show how posture is actually verified.

Better path:

  • pair policy claims with readiness and review evidence

Mixing public-safe guidance with internal-only controls​

Problem:

  • the page becomes either too vague or too risky to publish.

Better path:

  • keep the public page precise about boundaries and hand off internal detail explicitly

Source Truth​

Next paths​