On this page
The register below is an editorial template, not an OWASP specification. It helps a builder answer three practical questions: what does this workflow call, where does its data go, and who can decide what happens next?
Why record deployments rather than just API names?
The OWASP API Security Top 10 overview identifies current documentation and an inventory of hosts and deployed versions as important for addressing deprecated versions and exposed debug endpoints. A product name alone does not distinguish the deployments a workflow might depend on.
The detailed API9:2023 explanation describes risks involving old, unpatched deployments, outdated documentation and unnecessary third-party data sharing. It also notes that different versions can connect to the same database containing real data. Those are general risk explanations, not findings about your system.
Copy this blank register
Use one record for each host, deployed version and endpoint combination relevant to a workflow. This deliberately narrow unit makes differences visible; if you group endpoints, document what the grouping includes. Leave unknowns explicit rather than guessing from a version label.
| Field | Your record |
|---|---|
| Endpoint and host | |
| Deployed version | |
| Workflow dependency | |
| Data-flow summary | |
| Accountable owner | |
| Lifecycle status | |
| Retirement decision | |
| Evidence reference | |
| Review date |
For the data-flow summary, describe what enters the deployment, what returns, and any known storage or onward recipient. If storage or onward transfer is unknown, say so. Identify the workflow stage that depends on the response, not merely the automation platform hosting it.
Keep status separate from decision. Suggested status labels are active, deprecated, unknown and retired. A deprecated deployment can still have an unresolved dependency; its status does not settle whether retirement is safe. Record the accountable team or role without copying credentials or private contact details into the register.
An evidence reference should identify the supporting record and its scope: for example, a deployment record for the version or a workflow definition for a configured destination. A configured destination is not proof of observed traffic. Keep sensitive evidence in its appropriate access-controlled location rather than embedding payloads, tokens or secrets here.
One hypothetical completed row
Entirely synthetic example: every identifier, team, evidence reference and date below is fictional. The assumed workflow still depends on a deprecated deployment, so the decision remains review-only.
| Endpoint / host | Version | Workflow | Data flow | Owner | Status | Retirement decision | Evidence | Review date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| api-a.example.invalid /summaries | demo-r1 | WF-DEMO-07: summary step | Synthetic text → service → synthetic summary; no storage or onward transfer assumed | Demo integration team | Deprecated | Review only; dependency unresolved | DEMO-MAP-01 | 2026-11-01 |
This row illustrates a decision boundary, not a completed migration. A next action would be to ask the fictional owner to identify a replacement and document how the dependent step would change. Nothing in the row demonstrates a security weakness or authorizes shutdown.
Nine fields, three questions
The blank register has nine fields, and together they answer the three questions the article opens with: what does this workflow call, where does its data go, and who can decide what happens next. Endpoint and host, deployed version, workflow dependency and data-flow summary answer the first two: one record per host, deployed version and endpoint combination, with a description of what enters the deployment, what returns, and any known storage or onward recipient. Accountable owner, lifecycle status, retirement decision, evidence reference and review date answer the third: the team or role responsible, the status label, the decision beside it, the supporting record and its scope, and the date the decision is revisited. The article insists on the narrow unit on purpose: if endpoints are grouped, the grouping must be documented, and unknowns stay explicit rather than guessed from a version label.
Status is not a decision
The article keeps status and decision apart, and the hypothetical row shows why. The suggested status labels are active, deprecated, unknown and retired — and a deprecated deployment can still have an unresolved dependency, so its status does not settle whether retirement is safe. The synthetic example makes the boundary concrete: a workflow that still depends on a deprecated deployment, where the decision remains review-only, and the next action is to ask the fictional owner to identify a replacement and document how the dependent step would change. The decision table then turns the same boundary into three situations: missing inventory information, which calls for assigning someone to resolve the specific gap; an unresolved dependency, which calls for the workflow and deployment owners to reconcile it; and a retirement candidate, which calls for the owner’s decision, a dependency review and a change plan — none of which establishes that removal is safe.
Choose the next action without overstating the evidence
| Situation | What it establishes | Next action | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Missing inventory information | A field or its evidence is unknown. | Assign someone to resolve the specific gap and record a review date. | That the deployment is vulnerable or unused. |
| Unresolved dependency | A workflow relationship still needs confirmation or a migration decision. | Ask the workflow and deployment owners to reconcile the dependency. | That removing the endpoint is safe. |
| Retirement candidate | There is a documented reason to consider removal. | Seek the responsible owner’s decision, dependency review and change plan. | That approval or retirement has occurred. |
Keep the register useful
Review affected records when a host, version, workflow, recipient or owner changes, or when retirement is proposed. Record the decision, responsible role and supporting evidence. Do not mark a deployment retired solely because a spreadsheet says it should be.
This inventory supports ownership and lifecycle review. It does not replace separate checks of object authorization or resource consumption, and a fully populated register is not a security certification.
Source basis: OWASP’s 2023 edition, captured on 23 October 2026 at 10:06:24.881011 UTC for API9 and 10:06:25.189849 UTC for the overview. These are document captures, not live availability checks or tests of any deployment. This article uses those supplied captures; no new collection or firsthand deployment testing was performed for it. Refresh the guidance if the cited explanations change; update your records when their underlying evidence changes.
Part of the API Security Review Hub: eight practical guides for reviewing AI automations that call APIs.
