Skip to content
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

feat: add demo #2

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 19, 2024
Merged

feat: add demo #2

merged 2 commits into from
Aug 19, 2024

Conversation

olunusib
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 19, 2024

GuardAI Output

View Results

Code Security Analysis Results

The provided code snippet has several critical security vulnerabilities that can lead to potential security risks. Below, I've identified these issues along with suggestions to mitigate them.

Vulnerabilities and Suggestions:

  1. File Path Traversal:

    • Issue: The read_file function uses the filepath input directly without validation, making it susceptible to path traversal attacks. An attacker could potentially read sensitive files from the system by inputting a path like ../../etc/passwd.
    • Suggestion: Validate the filepath to ensure that it only points to expected directories. For example:
      import os
      
      SAFE_DIRECTORY = '/safe/directory'  # Define a safe directory
      
      def read_file(filepath):
          if not filepath.startswith(SAFE_DIRECTORY):
              raise ValueError("Invalid file path")
          with open(filepath, "r") as file:
              return file.read()
  2. Command Injection:

    • Issue: The execute_command function uses os.system() to execute commands from user input. This is highly vulnerable to command injection, allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary system commands.
    • Suggestion: Replace os.system() with a safer alternative, such as subprocess.run() with a validated command or a controlled set of commands that can be executed. For example:
      import subprocess
      
      def execute_command(command):
          allowed_commands = {"list": "ls", "print_date": "date"}  # Define allowed commands
          if command in allowed_commands:
              subprocess.run(allowed_commands[command], shell=True)
          else:
              raise ValueError("Command not allowed")
  3. Hardcoded Credentials:

    • Issue: The login function contains hardcoded username and password values, which is a poor security practice. An adversary that gains access to the code can easily discover the credentials.
    • Suggestion: Store authentication secrets such as usernames and passwords in a secure configuration file or environment variables. Use a hashing algorithm for password storage, and verify the password with a secure method. For instance, using bcrypt to hash and verify passwords:
      import bcrypt
      
      # Assume 'hashed_password' is stored securely (e.g., in a database)
      def login(username, password):
          stored_password = b'$2b$12$...'  # this would be the hashed password
          if username == "admin" and bcrypt.checkpw(password.encode(), stored_password):
              print("Login successful!")
          else:
              print("Login failed!")
  4. Lack of Input Validation:

    • Issue: User inputs for filepath, command, username, and password are not validated, leaving the application open to various forms of abuse.
    • Suggestion: Implement input validation and sanitization for all user inputs. Ensure that inputs conform to expected formats before being processed.
  5. Print Sensitive Information:

    • Issue: The application prints the content of the file directly, which could inadvertently expose sensitive information.
    • Suggestion: Avoid printing sensitive data directly to the console. Consider logging it securely instead or only displaying a preview if necessary.

By addressing these vulnerabilities with the suggested enhancements, the application's security posture can be significantly improved, reducing the risk of exploitation and unauthorized access.

@olunusib olunusib merged commit 2f94826 into main Aug 19, 2024
1 check passed
@olunusib olunusib deleted the feat/add-demo branch August 19, 2024 05:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant