[CI]: Harden GitHub Actions #261
Conversation
Co-authored-by: reactive-firewall <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: StepSecurity Bot <[email protected]>
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
WalkthroughThis pull request focuses on updating GitHub Actions workflow files across the repository. The primary changes involve pinning specific commit hashes for various GitHub Actions instead of using version tags. These updates span multiple workflow files including CI-BUILD, CI-DOCS, CI-MATs, Labeler, Tests, Bandit, CodeQL Analysis, Markdown Lint, and YAML Lint workflows. The modifications ensure consistent and precise action versions, potentially improving workflow stability and reproducibility. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
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 using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
|
Here's the code health analysis summary for commits Analysis Summary
|
github-actions
bot
added
Testing
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
reactive-firewall
temporarily deployed
to
Testing
GitHub Actions
Inactive
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
.github/workflows/makefile-lint.yml (1)
Security concern: Commit hash does not match any tagged release
The commit hash
bd26d7905e47713ff0bf3b0e5e7b9c55f0d24e53is currently the HEAD of the main branch but does not correspond to any tagged release. The latest release is v0.2.2 (commit: 48ab7819837d1bdfcbac58e301478a06efebf4a8), and there's no evidence of a v0.2.2+8 version. Using an untagged commit from the main branch could introduce unexpected changes or security risks.
- Consider pinning to the latest stable release v0.2.2 using commit hash
48ab7819837d1bdfcbac58e301478a06efebf4a8- If specific features from main branch are needed, document the reason for using this specific commit
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
75-83: Verify the checkmake repository hash.The SHA verification is a good security practice, but let's verify the hash corresponds to the claimed version.
Let me verify if this commit hash corresponds to the claimed version v0.2.2+8.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the checkmake repository hash matches v0.2.2+8 # Fetch the repository and verify the commit git ls-remote https://github.com/mrtazz/checkmake.git | grep "bd26d7905e47713ff0bf3b0e5e7b9c55f0d24e53"Length of output: 206
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check git tags and releases to verify version git ls-remote --tags https://github.com/mrtazz/checkmake.git # Also check the latest release information gh api repos/mrtazz/checkmake/releases/latestLength of output: 10324
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
.github/workflows/markdown-lint.yml (1)
Line range hint
26-39: Excellent error handling improvementsThe enhanced error handling with detailed messages and proper exit codes improves debugging and maintainability.
Consider using POSIX built-ins as per your preferences:
- printf "::error file=%s,line=%s,endLine=%s,title=VALIDATION_ERROR::ERROR %s\n" \ + /usr/bin/printf "::error file=%s,line=%s,endLine=%s,title=VALIDATION_ERROR::ERROR %s\n" \.github/workflows/CI-DOCS.yml (1)
Line range hint
57-58: Consider pinning pip package versionsWhile you're hardening the CI process, consider pinning the versions of pip packages in requirements.txt files for complete reproducibility.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
.github/workflows/CI-BUILD.yml(2 hunks).github/workflows/CI-DOCS.yml(2 hunks).github/workflows/CI-MATs.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/Labeler.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/Tests.yml(13 hunks).github/workflows/bandit.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/codeql-analysis.yml(3 hunks).github/workflows/makefile-lint.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/markdown-lint.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/yaml-lint.yml(2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (5)
- .github/workflows/Labeler.yml
- .github/workflows/bandit.yml
- .github/workflows/CI-BUILD.yml
- .github/workflows/CI-MATs.yml
- .github/workflows/codeql-analysis.yml
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (5)
.github/workflows/markdown-lint.yml (1)
Pattern .github/**: * When the project is hosted on GitHub: All GitHub-specific configurations, templates, and tools should be found in the '.github' directory tree.
- 'actionlint' erroneously generates false positives when dealing with GitHub's
${{ ... }}syntax in conditionals. - 'actionlint' erroneously generates incorrect solutions when suggesting the removal of valid
${{ ... }}syntax.
.github/workflows/makefile-lint.yml (1)
Pattern .github/**: * When the project is hosted on GitHub: All GitHub-specific configurations, templates, and tools should be found in the '.github' directory tree.
- 'actionlint' erroneously generates false positives when dealing with GitHub's
${{ ... }}syntax in conditionals. - 'actionlint' erroneously generates incorrect solutions when suggesting the removal of valid
${{ ... }}syntax.
.github/workflows/CI-DOCS.yml (1)
Pattern .github/**: * When the project is hosted on GitHub: All GitHub-specific configurations, templates, and tools should be found in the '.github' directory tree.
- 'actionlint' erroneously generates false positives when dealing with GitHub's
${{ ... }}syntax in conditionals. - 'actionlint' erroneously generates incorrect solutions when suggesting the removal of valid
${{ ... }}syntax.
.github/workflows/yaml-lint.yml (1)
Pattern .github/**: * When the project is hosted on GitHub: All GitHub-specific configurations, templates, and tools should be found in the '.github' directory tree.
- 'actionlint' erroneously generates false positives when dealing with GitHub's
${{ ... }}syntax in conditionals. - 'actionlint' erroneously generates incorrect solutions when suggesting the removal of valid
${{ ... }}syntax.
.github/workflows/Tests.yml (1)
Pattern .github/**: * When the project is hosted on GitHub: All GitHub-specific configurations, templates, and tools should be found in the '.github' directory tree.
- 'actionlint' erroneously generates false positives when dealing with GitHub's
${{ ... }}syntax in conditionals. - 'actionlint' erroneously generates incorrect solutions when suggesting the removal of valid
${{ ... }}syntax.
📓 Learnings (1)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-11-21T02:05:08.096Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers scripts to include explicit data processing steps that produce the expected output, ensuring accurate and useful results.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-12-12T20:51:15.319Z
Learning: In the multicast project, when refactoring shell scripts, prefer improving organization within a single file over splitting into multiple files, unless the benefits of modularity clearly outweigh the added complexity in security, permissions, and debugging.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T10:29:50.461Z
Learning: For future scripts, reactive-firewall prefers to use only POSIX built-ins (like `printf` instead of `echo`) to align with CEP-8 conventions.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-11-21T02:05:08.096Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to specify the full raw URL when fetching files from gists to ensure correct retrieval of content, particularly when the file is in markdown format.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T10:29:55.563Z
Learning: For future scripts, reactive-firewall prefers to keep the shebang line with an extra space (e.g., `#! /bin/bash`) as per project style.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#184
File: LICENSE.md:36-43
Timestamp: 2024-11-14T07:03:35.207Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers that I verify URLs before suggesting changes, and avoid raising hypothetical issues without verification.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#235
File: .github/workflows/makefile-lint.yml:41-52
Timestamp: 2024-12-06T08:21:21.876Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to suppress errors in `apt-get install` commands when individual checks of the installed packages are performed afterwards, to allow for more granular error handling.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-12-13T01:44:13.412Z
Learning: In the multicast project's shell scripts, prefer organizing code into logical sections with clear comments (e.g., "=== Environment Setup ===") to maintain readability and maintainability while keeping related functions together.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#184
File: tests/check_pip:259-265
Timestamp: 2024-11-15T19:32:16.878Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers that code changes adhere to SOLID design principles, specifically avoiding unnecessary complexity (AHA principle), maintaining the Single Responsibility Principle, and ensuring complex work is done on separate development branches (Open/Closed Principle).
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#110
File: docs/USAGE.md:66-66
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T10:29:55.563Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to use "Caveat" as a heading instead of "Caution".
🔇 Additional comments (9)
.github/workflows/yaml-lint.yml (1)
23-23: Excellent security practice: Pinning actions to specific commit hashes
The change from version tags to commit hashes for GitHub Actions is a security best practice that prevents supply chain attacks through action version tampering.
Let's verify these are the latest stable versions:
Also applies to: 27-27, 51-51
✅ Verification successful
Actions are pinned to the latest stable versions
The commit hashes used in the workflow correspond to the latest stable releases:
- actions/checkout@11bd719 matches v4.2.2
- ibiqlik/action-yamllint@2576378 matches v3.1.1
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the pinned versions against latest releases
# Note: Using GitHub CLI to query the latest releases
# Check actions/checkout
echo "Checking actions/checkout latest release..."
gh api repos/actions/checkout/releases/latest --jq '.tag_name'
# Check ibiqlik/action-yamllint
echo "Checking ibiqlik/action-yamllint latest release..."
gh api repos/ibiqlik/action-yamllint/releases/latest --jq '.tag_name'
Length of output: 354
.github/workflows/markdown-lint.yml (1)
21-21: Consistent version pinning across workflows
The checkout action is pinned to the same commit hash as in yaml-lint.yml, maintaining consistency across workflows.
.github/workflows/CI-DOCS.yml (1)
46-46: Comprehensive security hardening with version pinning
All GitHub Actions are properly pinned to specific commit hashes, maintaining security and consistency across the workflow.
Let's verify these are the latest stable versions:
Also applies to: 48-48, 74-74
✅ Verification successful
Let me verify the actions/checkout version as well before making the final determination.
All GitHub Actions are using the latest stable versions
The verification confirms that all pinned versions match their latest stable releases:
- actions/checkout@11bd719 (v4.2.2) ✓
- actions/setup-python@0b93645 (v5.3.0) ✓
- actions/upload-artifact@b4b15b8 (v4.4.3) ✓
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the pinned versions against latest releases
# Check actions/setup-python
echo "Checking actions/setup-python latest release..."
gh api repos/actions/setup-python/releases/latest --jq '.tag_name'
# Check actions/upload-artifact
echo "Checking actions/upload-artifact latest release..."
gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/releases/latest --jq '.tag_name'
Length of output: 366
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check actions/checkout latest release
echo "Checking actions/checkout latest release..."
gh api repos/actions/checkout/releases/latest --jq '.tag_name'
Length of output: 166
.github/workflows/makefile-lint.yml (2)
35-35: LGTM! Excellent security practice in pinning the action version.
The change from using a version tag to a specific commit hash improves security by preventing supply chain attacks.
Line range hint 40-50: Well-structured error handling implementation.
The print_error function implementation follows best practices by:
- Using consistent error formatting
- Including file location and line numbers
- Following GitHub Actions' logging commands format
.github/workflows/Tests.yml (4)
88-90: LGTM! Consistent and secure action pinning across all jobs.
All instances of actions/checkout and actions/setup-python are correctly pinned to specific commit hashes, which is a security best practice to prevent supply chain attacks.
Also applies to: 173-175, 226-228, 345-347, 421-423, 474-476
130-130: Verify upload-artifact action version.
Let's verify the upload-artifact action commit hash corresponds to v4.4.3.
Also applies to: 280-280, 380-380
✅ Verification successful
Upload-artifact action version is correctly pinned
The commit hash b4b15b8c7c6ac21ea08fcf65892d2ee8f75cf882 correctly corresponds to both v4.4.3 and v4 tags in the actions/upload-artifact repository, confirming the version is properly pinned.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the upload-artifact action commit hash
# Fetch the repository and verify the commit
git ls-remote https://github.com/actions/upload-artifact.git | grep "b4b15b8c7c6ac21ea08fcf65892d2ee8f75cf882"
Length of output: 222
295-295: Verify test-results action version.
Let's verify the test-results action commit hash corresponds to v1.0.1.
✅ Verification successful
The test-results action commit hash correctly corresponds to v1.0.1
The commit hash 9739113ad922ea0a9abb4b2c0f8bf6a4aa8ef820 is correctly tagged as both v1 and v1.0.1 in the codecov/test-results-action repository, confirming that the version reference is accurate.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the test-results action commit hash
# Fetch the repository and verify the commit
git ls-remote https://github.com/codecov/test-results-action.git | grep "9739113ad922ea0a9abb4b2c0f8bf6a4aa8ef820"
Length of output: 226
120-120: Verify codecov action version.
Let's verify the codecov action commit hash corresponds to v5.1.1.
Also applies to: 270-270, 370-370
✅ Verification successful
Codecov action commit hash correctly corresponds to v5.1.1
The git command confirms that the commit hash 7f8b4b4bde536c465e797be725718b88c5d95e0e is correctly tagged as v5.1.1 in the codecov/codecov-action repository.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the codecov action commit hash
# Fetch the repository and verify the commit
git ls-remote https://github.com/codecov/codecov-action.git | grep "7f8b4b4bde536c465e797be725718b88c5d95e0e"
Length of output: 224
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Updates
Bug Fixes