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

Possible rule bypass #27

Closed
psychon opened this issue May 30, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed

Possible rule bypass #27

psychon opened this issue May 30, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@psychon
Copy link

psychon commented May 30, 2018

The fix for #24 (which is 74c6856) allows a configuration bypass:
I just add a PR that changes .mergify.yml to require zero reviews etc. Unless something in the code prevents "just merge anything"-configs, this PR will be merged. Assuming the project in question also uses Travis, this method could e.g. be used to extract secrets from Travis (which is why Travis uses the .travis.yml from the default branch and not from the PR).

Ref: awesomeWM/awesome#2260 (comment)

@sileht
Copy link
Member

sileht commented May 30, 2018

I have started to work on this: 8c89c7a

@sileht
Copy link
Member

sileht commented May 30, 2018

It's finished that and pushed it in production.

The fixed behavior have been documented in the Note here:
https://doc.mergify.io/getting-started.html#mergify-is-now-ready-what-will-happen-next

@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor

blueyed commented May 30, 2018

be used to extract secrets from Travis

How so? Not via Travis itself at least.
Because Mergify also allows to run code / custom callbacks?

@psychon
Copy link
Author

psychon commented May 30, 2018

Assuming we can get in a commit, you just change the .travis.yml to print out all secrets via echo $GH_TOKEN (or something like that). The PR that exists to merge this will run without the secret values, but the build for the master branch that happens after the PR is merged has access to the secrets and can print them out (or send them via netcat somewhere in the internet, or ....).

@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor

blueyed commented May 30, 2018

@psychon
I see, thanks for explaining! (I am slow today)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants