[GH-ISSUE #6333] [Feature] Add auditable suppression rules for reviewed analysis findings #3818

New issue

Open

opened 2026-10-31 00:44:21 +00:00 by bsakaguchi · 0 comments

bsakaguchi commented

2026-10-31 00:44:21 +00:00

Owner

Originally created by @jayykernel on GitHub (Oct 22, 2026).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/morluto/rea/issues/6333

Problem

In repeated analysis workflows, users may need to exclude known, reviewed findings from a particular report. Without an explicit suppression mechanism, downstream consumers may implement their own filters and lose the reason a finding was excluded or the ability to distinguish suppression from absence.

Desired outcome

Provide an optional, auditable way to suppress matching findings in report presentation while preserving the original analysis evidence.

Proposed behavior

Allow suppression rules to match supported, documented finding identifiers or attributes.
Allow a rule to carry a human-readable reason and optional owner/reference.
Mark matching findings as suppressed rather than deleting them.
Include suppression counts and rule references in summaries.
Define deterministic matching and precedence when multiple rules match.

Acceptance criteria

Suppressed findings remain inspectable with their original evidence and severity.
Reports distinguish suppressed findings from findings that were not produced.
Invalid or ambiguous rules fail with actionable validation errors.
Tests cover matching, non-matching, multiple rules, and absent optional metadata.

Scope

Suppression must not change the underlying analysis result or imply that a finding is false. The initial implementation can target result types with a well-defined finding identity.

Originally created by @jayykernel on GitHub (Oct 22, 2026). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/morluto/rea/issues/6333 ### Problem In repeated analysis workflows, users may need to exclude known, reviewed findings from a particular report. Without an explicit suppression mechanism, downstream consumers may implement their own filters and lose the reason a finding was excluded or the ability to distinguish suppression from absence. ### Desired outcome Provide an optional, auditable way to suppress matching findings in report presentation while preserving the original analysis evidence. ### Proposed behavior - Allow suppression rules to match supported, documented finding identifiers or attributes. - Allow a rule to carry a human-readable reason and optional owner/reference. - Mark matching findings as suppressed rather than deleting them. - Include suppression counts and rule references in summaries. - Define deterministic matching and precedence when multiple rules match. ### Acceptance criteria - Suppressed findings remain inspectable with their original evidence and severity. - Reports distinguish suppressed findings from findings that were not produced. - Invalid or ambiguous rules fail with actionable validation errors. - Tests cover matching, non-matching, multiple rules, and absent optional metadata. ### Scope Suppression must not change the underlying analysis result or imply that a finding is false. The initial implementation can target result types with a well-defined finding identity.

bsakaguchi referenced this issue

2026-10-31 01:10:28 +00:00

[PR #3818] feat(ghidra): apply a caller-selected PDB that matches the target #5923

bsakaguchi referenced this issue

2026-11-01 21:11:07 +00:00

[GH-ISSUE #5654] [Tracker] Open PRs that can't merge yet: conflicts and red CI (October 2026) #3425