feat(consent+report): P56-P67 Mercedes-Audit-Cycle (Anti-Audit, Phase G Vendors, Cookie-Behavior-Validator + 5 Mail-Polish-Items) [migration-approved]
CI / detect-changes (push) Successful in 11s
CI / branch-name (push) Has been skipped
CI / nodejs-build (push) Successful in 2m19s
CI / test-go (push) Has been skipped
CI / test-python-document-crawler (push) Has been skipped
CI / test-python-dsms-gateway (push) Has been skipped
CI / guardrail-integrity (push) Has been skipped
CI / secret-scan (push) Has been skipped
CI / dep-audit (push) Has been skipped
CI / sbom-scan (push) Has been skipped
CI / validate-canonical-controls (push) Successful in 16s
CI / loc-budget (push) Failing after 15s
CI / go-lint (push) Has been skipped
CI / python-lint (push) Has been skipped
CI / nodejs-lint (push) Has been skipped
CI / iace-gt-coverage (push) Has been skipped
CI / test-python-backend (push) Successful in 37s
CI / detect-changes (push) Successful in 11s
CI / branch-name (push) Has been skipped
CI / nodejs-build (push) Successful in 2m19s
CI / test-go (push) Has been skipped
CI / test-python-document-crawler (push) Has been skipped
CI / test-python-dsms-gateway (push) Has been skipped
CI / guardrail-integrity (push) Has been skipped
CI / secret-scan (push) Has been skipped
CI / dep-audit (push) Has been skipped
CI / sbom-scan (push) Has been skipped
CI / validate-canonical-controls (push) Successful in 16s
CI / loc-budget (push) Failing after 15s
CI / go-lint (push) Has been skipped
CI / python-lint (push) Has been skipped
CI / nodejs-lint (push) Has been skipped
CI / iace-gt-coverage (push) Has been skipped
CI / test-python-backend (push) Successful in 37s
P56 Anti-Auditing-Detection als constructive Compliance-Finding (Audit-API-
Empfehlung statt Anklage, weil Mercedes berechtigt Bots blockiert)
P57 Phase G vendor_details Union mit cmp_vendors -> 42 Anbieter sichtbar
P58 Anti-Audit-Detection robuster (Script-Domain-Check + Settings-spezifisch)
P59 Cookie-Behavior-Validator (4 Layer, 3-Tier-Severity: MEDIUM=Kategorie-
Mismatch / HIGH=Zweck-Mismatch / CRITICAL=beide=Vorsatz-Indiz)
+ Open Cookie Database (CC0) als Library-Seed (2264 Cookies)
P59b Cookie-Behavior in Banner-Check verdrahtet + Mail-Block (BUGFIX:
SessionLocal selbst oeffnen, db war im Background-Task nicht im Scope)
Mail-Polish nach Mercedes-Review:
P63 Banner-Footer-Links auch im wb7-link/role=link erkennen (Shadow-DOM-
Walker label-based statt nur <a href>)
P64 Re-Access-Severity: MEDIUM statt HIGH, wenn Footer "Einstellungen" oder
Mercedes-typisch existiert; OEM-Footer-Detection (wb7-footer)
P65 Text-Truncation: Word-Boundary statt Zeichen-Cut (kein "einfa"-Bruch
mehr in Sofortmassnahmen)
P66 GF-Aktionen: Service-Zweck vs Cookie-Zweck explizit erklaert
(haeufige Verwechslung Marketing/GF: "Akamai-Beschreibung" != Cookie-
Zweck pro DSK-OH 2024)
P67 Stirring-Finding mit "Verlust-Framing"-Erklaerung + Alt-vs-Neutral-
Beispiel, statt nur EDPB-Fachbegriff
Compliance-Advisor FAQ (admin agent-core/soul):
+ CNIL/EDPB Top-Bussgelder (Google 100M, Meta 60M, Amazon 35M)
+ Deutsche Praezedenz (LG Muenchen Google Fonts, EuGH Planet49, BGH I ZR 7/16)
+ 4 Risiko-Pfade (Bussgeld/Abmahnung/Sammelklage/NOYB) + Berechnungs-Methodik
Document-Generator Templates: AGB-DE (142), Impressum (140), Widerrufs-
formular-Anlage (143), DSR-Process-Dedup (139), Cookie-Library (144).
Architektur: doc_action_mappings.py + banner_dom_walkers.py +
cookie_behavior_validator.py + vendor_detail_extractor.py rausgezogen,
um die 500-LOC-Caps in agent_doc_check_report.py und
banner_text_checker.py einzuhalten.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -16,6 +16,11 @@ LOESCHKONZEPT_CHECKLIST = [
|
||||
r"(?:geltungsbereich|anwendungsbereich)",
|
||||
r"verantwortlich\w*\s+(?:fuer|für)\s+(?:das\s+)?l(?:oe|ö)schkonzept",
|
||||
r"(?:datenschutzbeauftragt\w*|dpo|dsb)\s+(?:verantwort|zustaendig|zuständig)",
|
||||
# P39: heading variants + Verantwortlichkeiten table
|
||||
r"(?:^|\n)\s*#+\s*\d*\.?\s*verantwortlichkeit",
|
||||
r"(?:^|\n)\s*#+\s*\d*\.?\s*geltungsbereich",
|
||||
r"verantwortlichkeiten\s*\|",
|
||||
r"\|\s*verantwortlich\s*\|",
|
||||
],
|
||||
"severity": "HIGH",
|
||||
"hint": "DIN 66398 verlangt einen klaren Geltungsbereich (welche Systeme, Datenarten, Standorte) und die Benennung des Verantwortlichen fuer Erstellung + Wartung des Loeschkonzepts.",
|
||||
@@ -98,6 +103,10 @@ LOESCHKONZEPT_CHECKLIST = [
|
||||
r"l(?:oe|ö)sch(?:prozess|vorgang|verfahren|workflow|routine)",
|
||||
r"(?:wie|wann)\s+(?:wird|werden)\s+(?:die\s+daten\s+)?gel(?:oe|ö)scht",
|
||||
r"automatisierte?\s+l(?:oe|ö)schung",
|
||||
# P39: more generic — "Verfahren fuer die Loeschung", "Loeschmethode"
|
||||
r"verfahren\s+(?:fuer|für|zur?)\s+(?:die\s+)?l(?:oe|ö)sch",
|
||||
r"l(?:oe|ö)sch(?:methode|frist|regel)",
|
||||
r"systematische?\s+(?:regeln?|verfahren)[\s\S]{0,80}l(?:oe|ö)sch",
|
||||
],
|
||||
"severity": "HIGH",
|
||||
"hint": "Beschreiben wie Loeschung erfolgt: automatisch per Cron-Job, manuell durch Admin, Loeschungs-Workflow im CRM, Backup-Loeschung etc.",
|
||||
@@ -154,6 +163,10 @@ LOESCHKONZEPT_CHECKLIST = [
|
||||
r"sperr\w+\s+(?:statt|anstelle)\s+l(?:oe|ö)sch",
|
||||
r"l(?:oe|ö)sch(?:beschr|sperr|ausnahme|hindernis)",
|
||||
r"(?:rechtsstreit|gerichtsverfahren|prozessrelevant)",
|
||||
# P39: gesetzliche Aufbewahrungspflichten als legitime Loeschausnahme
|
||||
r"(?:gesetzliche|handelsrechtlich|steuerrechtlich)\w*\s+aufbewahrungs?(?:pflicht|frist)",
|
||||
r"aufbewahrungspflicht[\s\S]{0,80}(?:setzt|bleib|gilt)",
|
||||
r"(?:hgb|ao|abgabenordnung)\s*§?\s*\d",
|
||||
],
|
||||
"severity": "MEDIUM",
|
||||
"hint": "Wenn Loeschung nicht moeglich ist (laufender Prozess, gesetzliche Aufbewahrung, Streitfall) muss stattdessen Sperrung/Einschraenkung (Art. 18 DSGVO) erfolgen. Sperrkonzept dokumentieren.",
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user