UntrustedCheckout: Try and differentiate between two versions of the query #19127
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot wasn't able to review any files in this pull request.
Files not reviewed (1)
- actions/ql/src/Security/CWE-829/UntrustedCheckoutCritical.ql: Language not supported
Tip: Copilot code review supports C#, Go, Java, JavaScript, Markdown, Python, Ruby and TypeScript, with more languages coming soon. Learn more
Collaborator
|
For other queries @yoff and I went with "in a privileged context" as the distinguishing factor. I think that continues to make sense here. |
aeisenberg
reviewed
Mar 31, 2025
Co-authored-by: Andrew Eisenberg <[email protected]>
aeisenberg
approved these changes
Mar 31, 2025
oscarsj
added
Actions
tausbn
reviewed
Apr 1, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We have two versions of the query
UntrustedCheckoutwith different severity (High and Critical) due to the difference in precision.When generating the docs for these rules, it is confusing to see the same name.
I wanted to simply add
HighandCriticalto the name, but then noticed that in the query itself we seem to provide a justification of why one is higher precision. Specifically, we say that we know that there is a poisonable step.Therefore, I've updated the name to include this bit and make it possible to distinguish the two.
I am not sure this is the best solution and I could not really find prior art on this situation.