docs: add Memory Defense to the 0.8.2 blog post - #2173
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow-up to #2172. The 0.8.2 blog post missed Memory Defense, the headline new OSS feature in this release, plus a few smaller items.
Added
redact/blockactions, opt-in policy example, and thememory_defense.triggeredwebhook with new SIEM enrichment fields. Verified new in 0.8.2 (no docs/config at v0.8.1; landed via refactor(memory-defense): per-bank regex defense, webhooks, drop dead surface #2077, feat(observations): enumerate + filter + visualize observation scopes #2149 webhook fields via #f304ce7e0).get-memoryparse (fix(cli): parse get-memory response correctly #2111).Notes
/developer/memory-defense(docsrouteBasePathis/).