Skip to content

fix(backend): mask Authorization header in web request block #10035

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

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

itsababseh
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

  • mask authorization header in web request block

Testing

  • poetry run format
  • poetry run test (fails: FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'docker')

Copy link

netlify bot commented May 24, 2025

Deploy Preview for auto-gpt-docs-dev canceled.

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit cd10ab4
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/auto-gpt-docs-dev/deploys/6831fd22b123e30008985a5e

@github-actions github-actions bot added platform/backend AutoGPT Platform - Back end platform/blocks size/m and removed platform/backend AutoGPT Platform - Back end platform/blocks labels May 24, 2025
Copy link

deepsource-io bot commented May 24, 2025

Here's the code health analysis summary for commits a51af36..cd10ab4. View details on DeepSource ↗.

Analysis Summary

AnalyzerStatusSummaryLink
DeepSource JavaScript LogoJavaScript✅ SuccessView Check ↗
DeepSource Python LogoPython✅ Success
❗ 1 occurence introduced
🎯 1 occurence resolved
View Check ↗

💡 If you’re a repository administrator, you can configure the quality gates from the settings.

Copy link

netlify bot commented May 24, 2025

Deploy Preview for auto-gpt-docs canceled.

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit cd10ab4
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/auto-gpt-docs/deploys/6831fd228a089c0008f2771c

@github-actions github-actions bot added the conflicts Automatically applied to PRs with merge conflicts label Jun 3, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jun 3, 2025

This pull request has conflicts with the base branch, please resolve those so we can evaluate the pull request.

Copy link

@dcq01 dcq01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi! I'm a grad student working on a research project about using large language models to automate code review. Based on your commit cd10ab4 and the changes in autogpt_platform/backend/backend/blocks/http.py, my tool generated this comment:

  1. Handle the case where input_data.headers can be None to avoid potential TypeError.
    1. Ensure that input_data.headers is always a valid dictionary to prevent runtime errors.
    1. Validate that input_data.method is not None before being used in the request.
    1. Ensure that input_data.url is not None or an empty string before making the request.
    1. Validate that the body field is of an expected type (e.g., dict for JSON) before processing it.
    1. Ensure that sensitive information is not included in error messages.
    1. Sanitize the content of the response before returning or logging it to avoid leaking sensitive information.
    1. Ensure that sensitive data in requests or responses is not logged or is masked appropriately.
    1. Implement validation on the url and method fields in the Input class to prevent SSRF attacks.
    1. Ensure that input_data.headers is a dictionary and not None.
    1. Ensure that response is not None before accessing response.content.
    1. Ensure that input_data.body is of an expected type before parsing it as JSON.
    1. Ensure that input_data.authorization.get_secret_value() is called only if input_data.authorization is not None.
    1. Ensure that the SecretStr type from Pydantic is being used correctly for the authorization field in the Input class.
    1. Ensure that get_secret_value() is a valid method of SecretStr.
    1. Ensure that the logger used in logger.warning(error_msg) is defined and imported properly.
    1. Ensure that SchemaField is properly imported or defined in the code.
    1. Ensure that the default value for json_format aligns with the expected behavior of the function and is documented clearly.
    1. Consider using a more descriptive name like request_headers for the variable headers to clarify its purpose.
    1. Ensure that you are using the latest version of the requests library to avoid known vulnerabilities.
    1. It is generally better to catch specific exceptions unless there is a compelling reason to catch all exceptions.
    1. Add a test case to verify that when the authorization field is set, the Authorization header is correctly included in the request.
    1. Add a test case to ensure that if the authorization field is None, the Authorization header is not included in the request headers.
    1. Ensure that the new import statement for SecretStr should be placed in alphabetical order with the other imports.
    1. Consider refactoring the logic for handling the json_format flag into a separate method to adhere to the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle.
    1. Consider adding a logging statement before yielding unexpected exceptions for better debugging.
    1. Log exception details in the catch-all except Exception as e block to aid in debugging.
    1. Provide more context about the error when yielding, such as the input parameters that led to the error.
    1. When creating a dictionary from input_data.headers, consider using input_data.headers.copy() instead of dict(input_data.headers) to maintain the original dictionary's type if it is a subclass of dict.
    1. Ensure that the use of yield in the run method is intended and that the calling code handles the generator appropriately.
    1. Ensure that there is a single blank line between method definitions and class definitions for better separation.
    1. Ensure that input_data.authorization is not None before accessing its methods.
    1. Consider implementing limits on the size of the response that can be processed to avoid high memory usage with large responses.

As part of my research, I'm trying to understand how useful these comments are in real-world development. If you have a moment, I'd be super grateful if you could quickly reply to these two yes/no questions:

  1. Does this comment provide suggestions from a dimension you hadn’t considered?
    1. Do you find this comment helpful?

Thanks a lot for your time and feedback! And sorry again if this message is a bother.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
codex conflicts Automatically applied to PRs with merge conflicts size/m
Projects
Status: 🆕 Needs initial review
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants