do not merge #3704
do not merge #3704
Conversation
WalkthroughThe update enhances the security and flexibility of the CI/CD pipeline by refining how Veracode API credentials are managed, incorporating environment variable fallbacks for these credentials. Moreover, it introduces a new mechanism to assess contributions from internal sources, adjusting the Veracode pipeline scans accordingly. This ensures a more robust and adaptable security posture for code scanning processes. Changes
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (2)
- .github/workflows/web.yml (1 hunks)
- centreon/.veracode-exclusions (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 3
centreon/.veracode-exclusions (1)
- 1-6: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [1-11]
The removal of the
testsdirectory from the.veracode-exclusionslist is a positive change, enhancing the security posture by ensuring that test code is also subject to Veracode scans. This aligns well with best practices for comprehensive security assessments..github/workflows/web.yml (2)
- 116-160: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [9-58]
The restructuring of jobs and steps, including the use of specific versions for actions like
actions/checkoutanddorny/paths-filter, enhances the workflow's reliability and predictability. Ensure to verify the impact of these changes on any dependent workflows or jobs.Verification successful
Given the results of the script, there are no direct references to the
.github/workflows/web.ymlworkflow within other YAML files in the repository, suggesting no explicit dependencies were found that could be directly affected by the changes in theweb.ymlworkflow. It's important to remain cautious about potential indirect dependencies or impacts that might not be captured through direct references in YAML files. Ensure to consider shared resources, artifacts, or external triggers that could interconnect workflows in ways not directly visible.* 119-120: The introduction of custom environment variables for Veracode API credentials (`vars.VERACODE_API_ID_SVC_EXT` and `vars.VERACODE_API_KEY_SVC_EXT`) is a positive change for centralizing secret management. Ensure these variables are properly configured in the GitHub repository settings.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify if there are any dependent workflows that might be affected by these changes. rg --type yaml 'uses: ./.github/workflows/web.yml'Length of output: 52
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 2
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/web.yml (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 1
.github/workflows/web.yml (1)
- 154-161: Echoing default environment variables and the Veracode service variable is useful for debugging. However, ensure that echoing sensitive information, such as service variables, is safe and complies with security best practices. If this information is sensitive, consider removing it or ensuring it's only available in secure contexts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 1
.github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (1)
- 155-156: The update to use fallbacks for Veracode API credentials by checking both secrets and environment variables enhances flexibility and security. This approach allows for more robust and fail-safe credential management.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 2
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (2)
- .github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (2 hunks)
- .github/workflows/web.yml (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 4
.github/workflows/web.yml (2)
- 119-120: The secrets for
veracode_api_idandveracode_api_keyare set to empty strings. This might be intentional for demonstration or testing purposes. However, if this is not the case, ensure that the secrets are correctly set in the GitHub repository settings to avoid authentication issues with Veracode services.- 126-152: Context dumping steps (
GITHUB_CONTEXT,JOB_CONTEXT,STEPS_CONTEXT,RUNNER_CONTEXT,STRATEGY_CONTEXT,MATRIX_CONTEXT) are added for debugging purposes. While this can be useful for troubleshooting, consider removing or commenting out these steps in the production workflow to avoid unnecessary log clutter and potential exposure of sensitive information..github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (2)
- 93-108: The debug statements for checking the presence of
veracode_api_idand using a workaround forveracode_api_idandVERACODE_API_ID_SVC_EXTare present. While useful for debugging, consider removing these statements in a production workflow to avoid unnecessary log clutter and potential exposure of sensitive information.- 171-172: The use of fallback logic for
veracode_api_idandveracode_api_keyusing||operator in thevidandvkeyfields is a good practice for flexibility. However, ensure that thevarscontext is correctly used and that the fallback values are securely managed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (2 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- .github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (2 hunks)
Additional comments: 1
.github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (1)
- 171-172: The conditional logic for selecting
vidandvkeyvalues based on the presence of secrets or fallback variables is a good approach for resilience. However, ensure that the syntax used for the conditional assignment is correct and supported in the context it's being used. In shell scripts, the${{ condition && true_case || false_case }}syntax works, but in YAML/Actions context, this might not behave as expected iftrue_caseevaluates to a falsy value. Consider verifying this behavior or using a more explicit method for clarity and maintainability.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 3
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (2)
- .github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (5 hunks)
- .github/workflows/web.yml (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 3
.github/workflows/web.yml (1)
- 154-160: The use of default environment variables and the dumping of various contexts (GitHub, job, steps, runner, strategy, matrix) is a good practice for debugging and transparency. However, ensure that sensitive information is not inadvertently logged, especially in public repositories.
Verification successful
The script execution did not find any direct references to "secrets" or "token" in the echo statements within the
.github/workflows/web.ymlfile, suggesting that the specific concern about logging sensitive information in this manner is not substantiated by the evidence. However, it's important to remain cautious and ensure that sensitive information is not inadvertently logged in other ways, especially in public repositories. Always review the context and content of what is being logged to avoid exposing sensitive information.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for potential sensitive information in logs rg --type yaml "echo" .github/workflows/web.yml | grep -i "secrets\|token"Length of output: 74
.github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (2)
- 47-47: Adding a check for internal contributions (
internal_contrib) is a valuable addition for differentiating between internal and external contributions. This can help in applying different security or analysis standards based on the source of the contribution.- 180-202: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [167-198]
The differentiation between internal and external contributions in the pipeline scan steps is a good security practice. However, ensure that the fallback mechanism for Veracode API credentials (
vars.VERACODE_API_ID_SVC_EXTandvars.VERACODE_API_KEY_SVC_EXT) is correctly implemented. GitHub Actions typically use thesecretscontext for accessing secrets. If a fallback mechanism is necessary, consider implementing it securely and clearly document the conditions under which it is used.Consider revising the fallback mechanism for Veracode API credentials to ensure it aligns with GitHub Actions best practices and security standards.
| echo "The run id is: $GITHUB_RUN_ID" | ||
| echo "The GitHub Actor's username is: $GITHUB_ACTOR" | ||
| echo "GitHub SHA: $GITHUB_SHA" | ||
| echo "Veracode svc var : ${{ vars.VERACODE_API_ID_SVC_EXT }}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The usage of vars.VERACODE_API_ID_SVC_EXT for setting the Veracode service variable seems incorrect. GitHub Actions workflows typically use secrets accessed with the secrets context. Ensure that the correct context is used to access the Veracode API credentials.
- echo "Veracode svc var : ${{ vars.VERACODE_API_ID_SVC_EXT }}"
+ echo "Veracode svc var : ${{ secrets.VERACODE_API_ID_SVC_EXT }}"Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.
| echo "Veracode svc var : ${{ vars.VERACODE_API_ID_SVC_EXT }}" | |
| echo "Veracode svc var : ${{ secrets.VERACODE_API_ID_SVC_EXT }}" |
| echo "development_stage=$DEVELOPMENT_STAGE" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||
| echo "display_summary=$DISPLAY_SUMMARY" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||
| echo "enable_qg=$ENABLE_QG" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| echo "[DEBUG] - vars svc_ext _test = ${{ vars.VERACODE_API_ID_SVC_EXT }}" | ||
| echo "[DEBUG] - external contrib status ? = ${{ github.event.pull_request.author_association }}" | ||
|
|
||
| # external contributions check | ||
| INTERNAL_CONTRIB=false | ||
| if [[ ${{ github.event.issue.author_association }} == 'OWNER' || ${{ github.event.issue.author_association }} == 'COLLABORATOR') || (${{ github.event.issue.author_association }} == 'CONTRIBUTOR') || ${{ github.event.issue.author_association }} == 'MEMBER' ]]; then | ||
| INTERNAL_CONTRIB=true | ||
| fi | ||
| echo "internal_contrib=$INTERNAL_CONTRIB" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||
|
|
||
| cat $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||
|
|
||
| pipeline-scan: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [61-107]
Using variable interpolation ${{...}} with github context data in a run: step could allow an attacker to inject their own code into the runner. This would allow them to steal secrets and code. github context data can have arbitrary user input and should be treated as untrusted. Instead, use an intermediate environment variable with env: to store the data and use the environment variable in the run: script. Be sure to use double-quotes the environment variable, like this: "$ENVVAR".
- if [[ "${{ vars.VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE }}" == "false" ]] || [[ -n "${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}" && "${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}" == "${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}" ]]; then
+ VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE="${{ vars.VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE }}"
+ VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR="${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}"
+ PR_NUMBER="${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}"
+ if [[ "$VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE" == "false" ]] || [[ -n "$VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR" && "$VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR" == "$PR_NUMBER" ]]; then
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (5 hunks)
Additional comments: 2
.github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (2)
- 47-47: The addition of
internal_contribto the outputs of thebuildjob is a good practice for conditional execution of subsequent steps based on the nature of the contribution. This allows for more granular control over the workflow execution path.- 180-202: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [167-198]
The conditional execution of pipeline scans based on the
internal_contriboutput is a good security practice, ensuring that different scan configurations are used for internal and external contributions. This differentiation can help in applying stricter security checks or different handling for external contributions, which might carry a higher risk. However, ensure that thevars.VERACODE_API_ID_SVC_EXTandvars.VERACODE_API_KEY_SVC_EXTvariables are properly set up and securely managed, as they are critical for the security of the pipeline.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (5 hunks)
Additional comments (3)
.github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (3)
- 47-47: The addition of the
internal_contriboutput in thebuildjob aligns with the PR's objective to differentiate between internal and external contributions.- 96-97: Ensure that debug statements like these are removed or secured before merging into a production branch to prevent potential leakage of sensitive information.
- 180-202: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [167-198]
The conditional execution of the
pipeline-scanjob based on theinternal_contriboutput is a good practice, ensuring that internal and external contributions are handled appropriately.
This reverts commit d7fac09.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (5 hunks)
Additional comments (4)
.github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (4)
- 47-47: This addition looks good and follows best practices for defining outputs in GitHub Actions workflows.
- 162-162: The conditional execution of the pipeline scan based on the
internal_contriboutput is correctly implemented and aligns with best practices for GitHub Actions workflows.- 178-179: The implementation of the pipeline scan for external contributions using service-specific variables for Veracode API credentials is secure and follows best practices.
- 194-194: The backup analysis reports step is well-implemented for debugging purposes and follows good practices for error handling and reporting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (10 hunks)
Additional comments (7)
.github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (7)
- 47-47: The addition of the
internal_contriboutput in thebuildjob is a good practice for conditionally executing steps based on the source of the contribution.- 129-135: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [132-142]
The logic for finding baseline files based on the stability input and branch names is well-structured and makes good use of AWS CLI commands for interaction with S3.
- 163-163: Conditionally executing the
Pipeline scanstep based on theinternal_contriboutput is a good practice for optimizing the workflow based on the source of the contribution.- 179-180: Conditionally executing the
Pipeline scan from external sourcestep based on theinternal_contriboutput for external contributions is a good practice for optimizing the workflow.- 208-224: The logic in the
Backup analysis reportsstep for checking the presence of certain files and backing them up to S3 is well-structured and makes good use of conditional checks and AWS CLI commands.- 268-268: The logic in the
Save baseline filesstep for moving and uploading baseline files to S3 based on the branch name is well-structured and makes good use of AWS CLI commands.- 355-355: The logic for removing pnpm dependencies and setting an environment variable based on the presence of composer files in the
SCA scanstep is clear and makes good use of shell commands.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (10 hunks)
Additional comments (8)
.github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (8)
- 47-47: LGTM! The addition of
internal_contribas an output for thebuildjob is clear and follows GitHub Actions syntax correctly.- 69-79: The advice provided in the previous comment regarding the use of intermediate environment variables instead of direct interpolation applies here as well.
,- 91-95: The advice provided regarding the use of intermediate environment variables instead of direct interpolation applies here as well.
,- 129-135: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [132-142]
The logic for determining the baseline file path and interacting with AWS S3 is well-structured and follows best practices for shell scripting.
- 176-198: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [163-195]
The conditional execution of pipeline scans based on the
internal_contriboutput is clear and logically separates internal and external contributions. Using different credentials for internal and external sources enhances security.
- 208-224: The logic for backing up analysis reports and handling baseline files is well-structured. The use of conditional checks and AWS CLI commands is appropriate for the task.
- 268-268: The conditions for saving baseline files based on the branch name are clear and logically structured. The use of AWS CLI commands for interactions with S3 is appropriate.
- 355-355: The logic for removing certain dependency files and determining whether to trigger the SCA scan is clear and follows best practices for shell scripting.
| # setting QG state | ||
| ENABLE_QG="true" | ||
| if [[ "${{ vars.VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE }}" == "false" ]] || [[ -n "${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}" && "${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}" == "${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}" ]]; then | ||
| if [ "${{ vars.VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE }}" == "false" ] || [ -n "${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}" && "${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}" == "${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}" ]; then |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using direct variable interpolation ${{...}} with GitHub context data in a run: step poses a security risk. To mitigate this, use intermediate environment variables to store the GitHub context data and reference these environment variables in the run: script. Ensure to use double quotes when referencing the environment variable.
For example:
- if [ "${{ vars.VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE }}" == "false" ] || [ -n "${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}" && "${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}" == "${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}" ]; then
+ VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE="${{ vars.VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE }}"
+ VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR="${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}"
+ PR_NUMBER="${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}"
+ if [ "$VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE" == "false" ] || [ -n "$VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR" && "$VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR" == "$PR_NUMBER" ]; then
...Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.
| # setting QG state | |
| ENABLE_QG="true" | |
| if [[ "${{ vars.VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE }}" == "false" ]] || [[ -n "${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}" && "${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}" == "${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}" ]]; then | |
| if [ "${{ vars.VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE }}" == "false" ] || [ -n "${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}" && "${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}" == "${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}" ]; then | |
| # setting QG state | |
| ENABLE_QG="true" | |
| VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE="${{ vars.VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE }}" | |
| VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR="${{ vars.VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR }}" | |
| PR_NUMBER="${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}" | |
| if [ "$VERACODE_QUALITY_GATE" == "false" ] || [ -n "$VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR" && "$VERACODE_EXCEPTION_ON_PR" == "$PR_NUMBER" ]; then |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (10 hunks)
Additional comments (4)
.github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (4)
- 176-198: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [163-195]
The implementation of fallbacks for Veracode API credentials using service-specific environment variables is a good practice for enhancing security. Ensure that the fallback mechanism is tested thoroughly to handle cases where secrets might not be available.
- 176-198: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [163-195]
The addition of a check for internal contributions to optimize the execution path for Veracode pipeline scans is a thoughtful approach to streamline the CI/CD process. It's important to ensure that this logic correctly identifies internal vs. external contributions to avoid any unintended scan execution paths.
- 58-82: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [1-355]
The workflow file is well-structured and follows good practices, such as specifying exact versions for GitHub Actions. This ensures reproducibility and reduces the likelihood of unexpected changes affecting the workflow's behavior.
- 58-82: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [1-355]
Ensure that secrets and environment variables are handled securely throughout the workflow. This includes avoiding direct interpolation of secrets in
run:steps and ensuring that environment variables are used in a manner that minimizes the risk of leakage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (10 hunks)
Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/veracode-analysis.yml (1)
- 178-200: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [165-196]
The conditional execution of pipeline scans based on the contribution source (internal vs. external) is a good practice for optimizing the scanning process and applying different security policies. However, ensure that the logic correctly identifies internal contributions and that the fallback variables (
vars.VERACODE_API_ID_SVC_EXTandvars.VERACODE_API_KEY_SVC_EXT) are securely managed and have the appropriate access controls in place.
do not merge
Summary by CodeRabbit