Add security rules for cookie handling in Java applications #67
Conversation
|
Sakshis seems not to be a GitHub user. You need a GitHub account to be able to sign the CLA. If you have already a GitHub account, please add the email address used for this commit to your account. You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it. |
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces two new security rules for Java applications regarding cookie handling: one for detecting cookies set without the 'HttpOnly' flag and another for those lacking the 'Secure' flag. Corresponding test cases and snapshots are also created to validate these rules. The changes include specific patterns to identify insecure cookie configurations, along with associated CWE identifiers for reference. The new rules aim to enhance security by ensuring cookies are properly configured to mitigate vulnerabilities. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
🪧 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 (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
rules/java/security/cookie-httponly-false-java.yml (1)
8-11: Enhance security referencesConsider adding more comprehensive security references:
- OWASP Session Management Cheat Sheet
- NIST Guidelines for Secure Cookie Usage
tests/java/missing-secure-java-test.yml (2)
2-9: Enhance valid test cases coverageThe valid test cases are good but could be more comprehensive. Consider adding:
- Cookie builder pattern examples
- Framework-specific cookie handlers (Spring, Jakarta)
- Cases with both Secure and HttpOnly flags
valid: - | Cookie c1 = getCookieSomewhere(); return HttpResponse.ok().cookie(Cookie.of("foo", "bar").secure(true)); Cookie cookie = request.getCookies().findCookie( "foobar" ) Cookie c = new NettyCookie("foo", "bar"); c.secure(true); NettyCookie r = new NettyCookie("foo", "bar").secure(true); + // Add builder pattern example + Cookie.builder() + .name("foo") + .value("bar") + .secure(true) + .httpOnly(true) + .build(); + // Add Spring example + ResponseCookie.from("foo", "bar") + .secure(true) + .httpOnly(true) + .build();
10-15: Add more invalid test patternsThe invalid test cases should include more real-world scenarios:
- Deprecated cookie APIs
- Common framework misconfigurations
- Chain method calls with missing security flags
tests/java/cookie-httponly-false-java-test.yml (2)
5-10: Consider parameterizing the cookie nameThe test case correctly demonstrates secure cookie configuration with both
HttpOnlyandSecureflags. However, consider parameterizing the cookie name to increase test coverage with different cookie names.- public void setSecureHttponlyCookie(@RequestParam String value, HttpServletResponse response) { - Cookie cookie = new Cookie("cookie", value); + public void setSecureHttponlyCookie(@RequestParam String name, @RequestParam String value, HttpServletResponse response) { + Cookie cookie = new Cookie(name, value); cookie.setSecure(true); cookie.setHttpOnly(true); response.addCookie(cookie); }
15-20: Add documentation for security test caseSince this is a security test case demonstrating insecure configuration, consider adding a comment to explicitly document that this is an example of what not to do.
+ /** + * Example of insecure cookie configuration. + * WARNING: This method demonstrates what NOT to do - it deliberately sets insecure cookie flags + * for testing purposes only. + */ public void explicitDisable(@RequestParam String value, HttpServletResponse response) {rules/java/security/missing-secure-java.yml (1)
65-70: Consider prioritizing matchers for better performanceThe current rule uses a simple OR combination of matchers. Consider ordering them by specificity and likelihood of matching to potentially improve performance.
rule: any: - - matches: match_instance - - matches: match_without_httponly - - matches: match_cookie_last - - matches: match_identifier_with_simplecookie + # Start with most specific matchers + - matches: match_without_httponly + - matches: match_identifier_with_simplecookie + # Fall back to more general matchers + - matches: match_cookie_last + - matches: match_instance
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
rules/java/security/cookie-httponly-false-java.yml(1 hunks)rules/java/security/missing-secure-java.yml(1 hunks)tests/__snapshots__/cookie-httponly-false-java-snapshot.yml(1 hunks)tests/__snapshots__/missing-secure-java-snapshot.yml(1 hunks)tests/java/cookie-httponly-false-java-test.yml(1 hunks)tests/java/missing-secure-java-test.yml(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- tests/snapshots/missing-secure-java-snapshot.yml
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 yamllint (1.35.1)
tests/java/cookie-httponly-false-java-test.yml
[error] 13-13: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
rules/java/security/missing-secure-java.yml
[error] 21-21: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 22-22: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[warning] 42-42: wrong indentation: expected 4 but found 8
(indentation)
[warning] 44-44: wrong indentation: expected 10 but found 12
(indentation)
[warning] 47-47: wrong indentation: expected 14 but found 16
(indentation)
[warning] 48-48: wrong indentation: expected 20 but found 22
(indentation)
[warning] 52-52: wrong indentation: expected 20 but found 22
(indentation)
[warning] 55-55: wrong indentation: expected 24 but found 26
(indentation)
[warning] 56-56: wrong indentation: expected 30 but found 32
(indentation)
[warning] 59-59: wrong indentation: expected 30 but found 32
(indentation)
[warning] 62-62: wrong indentation: expected 20 but found 22
(indentation)
[warning] 63-63: wrong indentation: expected 24 but found 26
(indentation)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
tests/java/missing-secure-java-test.yml (1)
1-15: Verify coverage of cookie creation patterns
Let's verify if there are other common cookie creation patterns in the codebase that should be included in the test cases.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different search strategy to verify cookie patterns.
Based on the test file content and the absence of other Java files in the repository, I can now generate the final response:
Test cases adequately cover common cookie creation patterns
The test file already covers the main cookie creation patterns:
- Direct cookie creation via
Cookie.of() NettyCookieinstantiationSimpleCookiecreation- Cookie retrieval and modification
- Secure and insecure cookie configurations
The test cases appropriately validate both the secure patterns (with .secure(true)) and catch insecure patterns where the secure flag is missing.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for cookie creation patterns in the codebase
echo "Searching for cookie creation patterns..."
rg -t java "new Cookie|new NettyCookie|new SimpleCookie|Cookie\.builder|ResponseCookie" -A 3
echo "Searching for cookie-related methods..."
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ {
$$$
$RET_TYPE $METHOD_NAME($PARAMS) {
$$$
cookie.$METHOD($ARG)
$$$
}
}'
Length of output: 548
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for all Java files first
echo "Searching for Java files..."
fd -e java
# Then search for cookie-related patterns in the test file and any other Java files
echo -e "\nSearching for cookie patterns in the test file..."
cat tests/java/missing-secure-java-test.yml
echo -e "\nSearching for cookie patterns in Java files..."
rg -l "Cookie" --type java
# Look for specific cookie creation and configuration patterns
echo -e "\nSearching for specific cookie patterns..."
rg "Cookie\.|\.cookie\(|\.secure\(" --type java
Length of output: 1389
rules/java/security/missing-secure-java.yml (1)
1-13: LGTM! Well-documented security rule
The rule metadata is well-defined with:
- Clear and actionable message
- Appropriate severity level
- Relevant security references (CWE-614 and OWASP A05:2021)
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation