π‘οΈ Sentinel: [HIGH] Fix SSRF via HTTP Redirects - #415
Conversation
|
π Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a π emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down. I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job! For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 13 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review detailsβοΈ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: π Files selected for processing (5)
Comment |
π¨ Severity: HIGH
π‘ Vulnerability: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) bypass due to
urllib.request.urlopenblindly following HTTP redirects. An attacker could provide an allowed external URL (likehttps://github.com/) that subsequently returns a301or302redirect to an internal, private, or loopback IP (likehttp://127.0.0.1/).π― Impact: An attacker could bypass the
_is_safe_urlchecks on the initial request and successfully make requests to internal services, potentially interacting with sensitive infrastructure.π§ Fix:
SafeRedirectHandler(inheriting fromurllib.request.HTTPRedirectHandler) in bothappguardrail_core/controlplane.pyandscanner/cli/appguardrail.py.redirect_requestmethod to explicitly call_is_safe_urlon any new redirect URL, raisingurllib.error.URLErrorif the URL resolves to an unsafe address.urllib.request.urlopento useurllib.request.build_opener(SafeRedirectHandler()).open().β Verification:
test_controlplane.pyto mockbuild_openerinstead ofurlopen.test_safe_redirect_blocks_unsafe_urlintests/test_ssrf_protection.pyto verify thatURLErroris raised when the redirect attempts to resolve to loopback (127.0.0.1) or link-local (169.254.169.254). All tests pass perfectly.PR created automatically by Jules for task 16119752968268062907 started by @seonghobae