How should I handle security findings related to standard Salesforce functionality that I cannot control or modify?
Answer
To handle security findings related to standard Salesforce functionality that you cannot control:
1. **Document as False Positives**: Create a detailed False Positive (FP) document that includes:
- Clear explanation of why the flagged issue does not pose a security risk
- Screenshots and references explaining why these are not valid vulnerabilities
- Evidence that the functionality is standard Salesforce behavior and cannot be modified
- Reference to official Salesforce documentation confirming the limitation
2. **Provide Comprehensive Documentation**:
- Description of the finding and the specific feature involved
- Statement that the feature is standard Salesforce functionality
- Any compensating controls or mitigations in place
- Supporting evidence such as Salesforce security guidelines or prior approvals
3. **Submit with Security Review**: Include the FP document in your security review submission materials
4. **Open a Case if Needed**: If further clarification is required, open a case with Salesforce Support and attach the false positive document along with relevant scan results for additional review and guidance.
Enhancing FAQ...
Enhancing FAQ with AI recommendations...
AI Recommended Enhancement
Question
How should I handle security findings related to standard Salesforce functionality that I cannot control or modify?
Recommended Answer Update
To handle security findings related to standard Salesforce functionality that you cannot control:
1. **Document as False Positives**: Create a detailed False Positive (FP) document that includes:
- Clear explanation of why the flagged issue doesn't pose a security risk
- Screenshots and references explaining why these aren't valid vulnerabilities
- Evidence that the functionality is standard Salesforce behavior and cannot be modified
- Reference to official Salesforce documentation confirming the limitation
2. **Provide Comprehensive Documentation**:
- Description of the finding and the specific feature involved
- Statement that the feature is standard Salesforce functionality
- Any compensating controls or mitigations in place
- Supporting evidence such as Salesforce security guidelines or prior approvals
3. **Submit with Security Review**: Include the FP document in your security review submission materials
4. **Open a Case if Needed**: If further clarification is required, open a case with Salesforce Support and attach the false positive document along with relevant scan results for additional review and guidance.
Reasoning
The original FAQ is well-structured and accurate. I made minimal changes to improve clarity and tone:
1. Simplified 'does not pose' to 'doesn't pose' for more conversational tone
2. Changed 'are not valid' to 'aren't valid' for consistency with conversational style
I did not associate any specific security rules because this FAQ addresses a process question about handling false positives related to standard Salesforce functionality, rather than providing technical guidance about specific security vulnerabilities or coding practices. The security rules in the available list are primarily focused on detecting specific security issues in code (like SOQL injection, XSS, CRUD violations, etc.), whereas this FAQ provides procedural guidance for documenting exceptions when security scanners flag standard Salesforce features that cannot be modified by developers. The FAQ's content is procedural/administrative rather than technical security implementation guidance.