build: permissions monitoring #275
Conversation
Signed-off-by: James Ramirez <[email protected]>
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to three GitHub Actions workflow files, enhancing security measures and updating permissions. Key changes include the addition of a Changes
Possibly related PRs
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
🔇 Additional comments (4).github/workflows/dependency-review.yml (1)
Setting .github/workflows/scorecard.yml (3)
The addition of Line range hint The explicit permission grants are properly scoped with clear documentation explaining their necessity. This follows security best practices by providing only the required access levels:
Excellent security improvements:
Let's verify these endpoints are sufficient for the workflow: ✅ Verification successfulThe allowed endpoints list appears complete and secure The verification shows that the workflow file only contains documentation URLs in comments, with no additional endpoints required for the actual execution. The allowed endpoints list covers all essential services needed for the Scorecard Action:
The hardening configuration with disabled sudo and blocked egress is properly implemented with a comprehensive allowlist. 🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: #!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the workflow doesn't require additional endpoints
# Test: Search for any URLs or domains in the scorecard-action repository
# that might need to be added to allowed-endpoints
gh api repos/ossf/scorecard-action/contents/action.yml --raw | grep -E "https?://[^[:space:]/]+" || true
Length of output: 1469 Script: #!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to verify the endpoints
# 1. Check the workflow file itself for any URLs
rg -i "https?://[^\s/]+" .github/workflows/scorecard.yml
# 2. Check if there are any other workflow files that might give us insights
fd "\.ya?ml$" .github/workflows/ --exec cat {} \; | rg -i "https?://[^\s/]+"
# 3. Look for any configuration files that might contain URLs
fd "config|\.ya?ml$" . --exclude .github/workflows | rg -i "https?://[^\s/]+"
Length of output: 771 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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
.github/workflows/dependency-review.yml (1)
19-19: Document the purpose of the permissions monitoring step.Consider adding a comment above this step to explain its purpose and benefits, maintaining consistency with the well-documented nature of this workflow file.
Add documentation like this:
+ # Monitor GitHub Actions permissions to enhance security - uses: GitHubSecurityLab/actions-permissions/monitor@v1.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (1)
21-21: Consider pinning to a specific commit SHAFor enhanced security and reproducibility, consider pinning the action to a full commit SHA instead of using the version tag
@v1. This aligns with the practice used for other actions in this workflow.Example:
- - uses: GitHubSecurityLab/actions-permissions/monitor@v1 + - uses: GitHubSecurityLab/actions-permissions/monitor@<full-commit-sha>.github/workflows/speculative-plan.yaml (1)
Line range hint
117-121: Consider reducing permissions scope.The
issues:writepermission appears unnecessary as creating PR comments only requirespull-requests:write. Consider removing it to align with the principle of least privilege.Apply this change:
permissions: contents: read pull-requests: write - issues: write
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
.github/workflows/dependency-review.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/scorecard.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/speculative-plan.yaml(4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (2)
21-22: Excellent addition of permissions monitoring!
This step enhances security by monitoring permissions throughout the workflow execution, complementing the existing security measures like runner hardening and least-privilege permissions model.
21-22: Verify consistent implementation across workflows
Let's ensure the permissions monitoring step is consistently implemented across all mentioned workflows.
✅ Verification successful
Permissions monitoring is consistently implemented
The GitHubSecurityLab permissions monitoring action is consistently implemented across all workflows:
- All instances use the same version
@v1 - Found in all three workflows: dependency-review.yml, scorecard.yml, and speculative-plan.yaml
- Properly positioned before the Harden Runner step in each workflow
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistent implementation of permissions monitoring across workflows
echo "Checking for permissions monitoring implementation in workflows..."
rg -l "GitHubSecurityLab/actions-permissions/monitor" .github/workflows/
Length of output: 327
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the specific version and implementation details of the permissions monitoring step
echo "Checking implementation details across workflows..."
rg -A 2 "GitHubSecurityLab/actions-permissions/monitor" .github/workflows/
Length of output: 1542
.github/workflows/speculative-plan.yaml (4)
47-48: Same version pinning issue as above.
The monitoring action needs to be pinned to a specific SHA.
Line range hint 76-78: Appropriate permission scope for SARIF uploads.
The security-events: write permission is correctly scoped for uploading Trivy results to the code-scanning dashboard.
89-90: Same version pinning issue as above.
The monitoring action needs to be pinned to a specific SHA.
133-134: Same version pinning issue as above.
The monitoring action needs to be pinned to a specific SHA.
Terraform Cloud Plan OutputPlan: 0 to add, 0 to change, 0 to destroy. |
Signed-off-by: James Ramirez <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: James Ramirez <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: James Ramirez <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: James Ramirez <[email protected]>
|
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation