Skip to content

fix(cursor): prevent cross-account Max Mode capability leakage - #401

Open
luvs01 wants to merge 10 commits into
Devfrom
codex/fix-cursor-max-mode-evidence-leakage
Open

fix(cursor): prevent cross-account Max Mode capability leakage#401
luvs01 wants to merge 10 commits into
Devfrom
codex/fix-cursor-max-mode-evidence-leakage

Conversation

@luvs01

@luvs01 luvs01 commented Aug 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Motivation

  • Discovery previously recorded Cursor GetUsableModels max-mode evidence into a process-global singleton, letting one provider/account's results affect requests routed to other providers or accounts.
  • This could cause Max Mode to be set on requests routed through a different credential, changing request semantics and usage/costs across accounts.

Description

  • Stop writing discovery-time Max Mode evidence into an unscoped global; remove the liveCursorMaxModeBases singleton and its recordLiveCursorMaxModeModels mutation from the catalog code.
  • Stop calling the removed global setter from the provider discovery path in src/codex/catalog/provider-fetch.ts so provider fetch remains account-scoped and only caches the discovered roster.
  • Require route-local dynamic evidence to be explicitly supplied to resolveCursorSelection; otherwise, only static maxModeVerified capability can arm Max Mode (src/adapters/cursor/catalog.ts).
  • Update tests to assert that omitted live evidence cannot arm Max Mode for an unverified base while preserving existing static evidence behavior (tests/cursor-umbrella-rows.test.ts).

Testing

  • Ran focused unit tests: bun test tests/cursor-umbrella-rows.test.ts tests/cursor-catalog.test.ts tests/cursor-ultra-mode.test.ts, all tests in those files passed.
  • Ran full test suite: bun run test, which completed with tests passing in this environment (no new failures observed).
  • Typecheck via bun run typecheck passed and bun run privacy:scan passed.
  • bun run test:changed could not run because this checkout has no dev/origin/dev/upstream/dev comparison ref; this is an environment limitation, not a code failure.

Codex Task

lidge-jun and others added 10 commits August 25, 2026 10:36
release: promote dev into main for v2.32.1
# Conflicts:
#	package.json
[WRONG BRANCH] merge dev into main for the v2.33.0 release
Promotes the dev integration line onto main. The resulting tree is byte-identical
to origin/dev, including package.json at 2.34.0.

The package.json conflict is resolved to dev's side, NOT to main's stale 2.33.0.
Earlier promotions (lidge-jun#2553, lidge-jun#2507) kept the target's version so the release bump
would land on its own "release: vX.Y.Z" commit. That is no longer legal: this very
delta adds tests/release-version-line.test.ts, which fails when the in-tree version
sits behind the highest release tag. With v2.34.0-preview.20260827 now published,
2.33.0 orders behind it, so a promotion carrying the stale line turns CI red on
every shard that runs the suite.

The consequence for the release step is that scripts/release.ts skips the bump
(release.ts:568, currentVersion === version), so v2.34.0 gets tagged on this merge
commit rather than on a separate release commit. The workflow creates the tag itself
after publishing and validates expected-sha against the checked-out commit, so the
tag still names exactly the audited tree.
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev onto main for v2.34.0
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev onto main for v2.35.0
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev onto main for v2.36.0
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Important

  • 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Team

Run ID: bec1e822-4c4f-44df-aafc-a996ec4e0fc0


Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Aug 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review Completed 2026-08-31T02:39:00.728932Z c0c47c3 PR opened
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@github-actions github-actions Bot changed the title fix(cursor): prevent cross-account Max Mode capability leakage [WRONG BRANCH] fix(cursor): prevent cross-account Max Mode capability leakage Aug 31, 2026
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

✅ READY

  • all PR quality gates passed.

Hygiene

Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed.

@github-actions
github-actions Bot marked this pull request as draft August 31, 2026 02:36
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the bug Something isn't working label Aug 31, 2026

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: c0c47c363a

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

const ultraRequested = parsed.ultra || reasoning?.toLowerCase() === "ultra";
const evidence = liveMaxModeIds ?? liveCursorMaxModeBases;
const maxModeArmed = capability.maxModeVerified === true || evidence.has(parsed.baseId);
const maxModeArmed = capability.maxModeVerified === true || liveMaxModeIds?.has(parsed.baseId) === true;

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P1 Badge Thread live Max Mode evidence into production requests

For an account whose GetUsableModels response marks an otherwise-unverified model as Max-Mode capable, Ultra requests now silently omit the maxMode wire flag. This resolver's new argument is never supplied by production code: src/adapters/cursor/request-builder.ts:215 still calls it with only two arguments, while this commit also discards liveResult.maxModeModels in provider-fetch.ts, so only the statically verified kimi-k3 can use Max Mode. Preserve the evidence in a provider/credential-scoped store, pass the selected route's set into request construction, and add a focused discovery-to-request regression test.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L336-L339

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@luvs01 luvs01 changed the title [WRONG BRANCH] fix(cursor): prevent cross-account Max Mode capability leakage fix(cursor): prevent cross-account Max Mode capability leakage Sep 3, 2026
@luvs01
luvs01 changed the base branch from main to dev September 3, 2026 06:22
@github-actions
github-actions Bot marked this pull request as ready for review September 3, 2026 06:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

aardvark bug Something isn't working codex

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants