fix(security): harden session and resource boundaries

[bifrost0x]

Summary

• invalidate browser authentication state when passwords change, accounts are locked, or a preliminary account-deletion lock survives a failed delete
• sanitize replayable authentication, OAuth/step-up, Socket.IO, and SSH state after web, CLI, rollback, and interrupted restores
• classify every non-global address as internal while keeping Tailscale SSH available only through an exact attempt-scoped authorization
• bound SSH input envelopes and throughput, add structured backpressure, and preserve ordered UTF-8-safe large pastes with a per-session FIFO
• enforce field, record, per-store, aggregate-byte, and mutation-rate limits for commands and command sets

Compatibility

• the password-changing browser receives one replacement authentication session while all older sessions are invalidated
• durable users, provider identities, passkeys, active TOTP authenticators, and recovery codes survive restore sanitization
• authorized Tailscale SSH remains available for the exact WebSSH user, canonical target, and remote username
• existing oversized legacy command stores remain readable and can shrink or be deleted, but cannot grow further
• normal typing keeps its immediate path while backpressured pastes remain ordered

Validation

• Python: 2302 passed, 29 skipped
• JavaScript: 35 test files passed
• focused authentication, restore, network policy, SSH input, and command-storage regression tests
• git diff --check

Scan coverage

This addresses all five validated Medium findings from the Codex Security repository scan: browser-session revocation, restore-session resurrection, CGNAT/internal-target bypass, oversized SSH input resource exhaustion, and persistent command-store exhaustion.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

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

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-08-31T12:02:14.740765Z	032803d	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.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 032803d3a1

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".