Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ci(actions): adjust workflow triggers #379

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 6, 2024

Conversation

beiertu-mms
Copy link
Contributor

Add the pull_request_target trigger, so that pull requests from a
fork will also start a build. Otherwise they can't be verified.

A downside to this is that changes to the CI workflow can't be directly
verified on a pull request anymore without some workarounds, because
the CI will now run in the context of the base of the pull request.

Closes #378.

See also:

Add the `pull_request_target` trigger, so that pull requests from a
fork will also start a build. Otherwise they can't be verified.

A downside to this is that changes to the CI workflow can't be directly
verified on a pull request anymore without some workarounds, because
the CI will now run in the context of the base of the pull request.

Closes #378.

See also:
- https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/events-that-trigger-workflows#pull_request_target
@beiertu-mms beiertu-mms requested a review from a team as a code owner March 1, 2024 17:54
@beiertu-mms beiertu-mms added the bug Something isn't working label Mar 1, 2024
@technolinator-sbom-as-a-service
Copy link

technolinator-sbom-as-a-service bot commented Mar 1, 2024

Vulnerability Report

Please consider this as a tentative appraisal, consult Dependency-Track for reliable results.

Artifact Vulnerability Severity (CVSS v3) Recommendation
pkg:maven/org.bouncycastle/bcprov-jdk15on@1.70?type=jar
CVE-2023-33201# Bouncy Castle For Java LDAP injection vulnerability
Bouncy Castle provides the X509LDAPCertStoreSpi.java class which can be used in conjunction with the CertPath API for validating certificate paths. Pre-1.73 the implementation did not check the X.500 name of any certificate, subject, or issuer being passed in for LDAP wild cards, meaning the presence of a wild car may lead to Information Disclosure.

A potential attack would be to generate a self-signed certificate with a subject name that contains special characters, e.g: CN=Subject*)(objectclass=. This will be included into the filter and provides the attacker ability to specify additional attributes in the search query. This can be exploited as a blind LDAP injection: an attacker can enumerate valid attribute values using the boolean blind injection technique. The exploitation depends on the structure of the target LDAP directory, as well as what kind of errors are exposed to the user.

Changes to the X509LDAPCertStoreSpi.java class add the additional checking of any X.500 name used to correctly escape wild card characters.
🟡 Medium (5.3)
pkg:maven/net.minidev/json-smart@2.4.7?type=jar
CVE-2023-1370# json-smart Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerabilty
### Impact
Affected versions of net.minidev:json-smart are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) due to a StackOverflowError when parsing a deeply nested JSON array or object.

When reaching a ‘[‘ or ‘{‘ character in the JSON input, the code parses an array or an object respectively. It was discovered that the 3PP does not have any limit to the nesting of such arrays or objects. Since the parsing of nested arrays and objects is done recursively, nesting too many of them can cause stack exhaustion (stack overflow) and crash the software.

### Patches
This vulnerability was fixed in json-smart version 2.4.9, but the maintainer recommends upgrading to 2.4.10, due to a remaining bug.

### Workarounds
N/A

### References
- https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-1370
- https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-1370
- https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-NETMINIDEV-3369748
🟠 High (7.5) Update to 2.4.9 or later

@beiertu-mms
Copy link
Contributor Author

@heubeck or maybe it's better to have a separate workflow, which will "just" do maven test and docker build/verify for PRs from forks?

@emil-wire
Copy link
Contributor

@heubeck or maybe it's better to have a separate workflow, which will "just" do maven test and docker build/verify for PRs from forks?

could also make sense to split the workflow into pieces and pick and choose which ones should run where

@heubeck
Copy link
Member

heubeck commented Mar 6, 2024

Which parts of the workflow would you skip for fork-based runs?
Don't see a reason for not executing the full workflow.

@beiertu-mms beiertu-mms merged commit e5544f0 into main Mar 6, 2024
@beiertu-mms beiertu-mms deleted the ci/actions/adjust-workflow-triggers branch March 6, 2024 07:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Bug]: CI won't run on pull request created from forks
3 participants