Ossf/gha scorecard #10
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several new files and modifications primarily to enhance community guidelines and automate processes within the repository. A Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct and a CONTRIBUTING.md file have been added to outline community expectations and contribution guidelines. Additionally, configurations for Codecov and Dependabot have been updated, and new GitHub Actions workflows for supply-chain security analysis have been established. The README.md file has also been updated to include a badge for the OpenSSF Scorecard. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant Repository
participant CI/CD
participant Codecov
participant Dependabot
participant SecurityAnalysis
User->>Repository: Contributes Code
Repository->>User: Acknowledges Contribution
Repository->>CI/CD: Trigger Pipeline
CI/CD->>Codecov: Report Coverage
CI/CD->>Dependabot: Check Dependencies
CI/CD->>SecurityAnalysis: Run Security Analysis
SecurityAnalysis-->>CI/CD: Return Results
CI/CD-->>User: Notify Completion
Warning Rate limit exceeded@gimlichael has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 13 minutes and 46 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 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 (
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #10 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.50% 88.50%
=======================================
Files 11 11
Lines 200 200
Branches 8 8
=======================================
Hits 177 177
Misses 23 23 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (2)
1-7: Consider optimizing the workflow scheduleThe current schedule (Tuesday 17:45 UTC) seems arbitrary. Consider:
- Running more frequently (e.g., daily) to catch security issues sooner
- Using a more standard time (e.g., 00:00 UTC) for better predictability
- Adding a manual trigger (
workflow_dispatch) for on-demand runson: branch_protection_rule: schedule: - - cron: '45 17 * * 2' + - cron: '0 0 * * *' push: branches: [ "main" ] + workflow_dispatch:
35-37: Consider increasing artifact retention periodA 5-day retention period might be insufficient for thorough security investigation, especially if issues are discovered over weekends or holidays.
with: name: SARIF file path: results.sarif - retention-days: 5 + retention-days: 30.github/workflows/pipelines.yml (2)
6-9: Security improvement: Workflow changes now trigger buildsThe removal of
.github/**from paths-ignore is a positive security enhancement. This ensures that any changes to workflow files will trigger builds and be properly validated, which aligns with security best practices for CI/CD pipelines.Consider documenting this security consideration in your CONTRIBUTING.md to help contributors understand why workflow changes trigger builds.
Custom actions are actively maintained but should use commit SHA pinning
Based on the verification results, all custom actions from codebeltnet are actively maintained with recent updates (most within the last 3 months) and proper version tagging. However, the workflow currently uses version tags (e.g.,
@v1,@v2) which could be a security risk.
- Replace version tags with full commit SHAs for immutable references:
- uses: codebeltnet/git-checkout@v1 # Currently uses: codebeltnet/git-checkout@a1b2c3d # Recommended- Most critical actions (
dotnet-build,dotnet-pack,nuget-push) were updated within the last 24 hours- Security-related actions (
codeql-scan,sonarcloud-scan) were last updated in May 2024- All actions follow proper semantic versioning with tagged releases
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-186: Verify custom actions and secrets managementWhile not part of the current changes, it's important to verify the security of the custom actions and secrets used in this workflow.
Consider the following security recommendations:
- Pin custom actions to specific commit SHAs instead of version tags for immutability
- Regularly audit and rotate secrets to maintain security
- Consider implementing OIDC-based authentication for cloud services instead of long-lived tokens
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify custom actions and their versions # Check last update dates of custom actions echo "Checking last update dates of custom actions..." for action in git-checkout install-dotnet dotnet-tool-install-minver minver-calculate gcp-download-file dotnet-restore dotnet-build dotnet-pack dotnet-test dotnet-tool-install-reportgenerator dotnet-tool-install-sonarscanner sonarcloud-scan sonarcloud-scan-finalize codecov-scan codeql-scan codeql-scan-finalize nuget-push; do echo "Action: codebeltnet/$action" gh api repos/codebeltnet/$action/commits/main --jq '.commit.committer.date' done # Check if actions are properly tagged/released echo -e "\nChecking version tags of custom actions..." for action in git-checkout install-dotnet dotnet-tool-install-minver minver-calculate gcp-download-file dotnet-restore dotnet-build dotnet-pack dotnet-test dotnet-tool-install-reportgenerator dotnet-tool-install-sonarscanner sonarcloud-scan sonarcloud-scan-finalize codecov-scan codeql-scan codeql-scan-finalize nuget-push; do echo "Action: codebeltnet/$action" gh api repos/codebeltnet/$action/tags --jq '.[].name' doneLength of output: 17668
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
.github/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md(1 hunks).github/CONTRIBUTING.md(1 hunks).github/codecov.yml(1 hunks).github/dependabot.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/pipelines.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/scorecard.yml(1 hunks)README.md(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- .github/dependabot.yml
- README.md
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
.github/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
[uncategorized] ~3-~3: If this is a compound adjective that modifies the following noun, use a hyphen.
Context: ...tributor Covenant which is used by many open source projects, including those under the [.N...
(EN_COMPOUND_ADJECTIVE_INTERNAL)
[style] ~35-~35: Try using a synonym here to strengthen your wording.
Context: ...ind * Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks * Pu...
(COMMENT_REMARK)
.github/CONTRIBUTING.md
[typographical] ~7-~7: Consider adding a comma here.
Context: ...ns with the project. ## Code of Conduct Please review our [code of conduct](CODE_OF_CO...
(PLEASE_COMMA)
[typographical] ~27-~27: Consider adding a comma here.
Context: ...eproduce the issue. ## Coding Guidelines * Please follow [Framework Design Guidelines](ht...
(PLEASE_COMMA)
[typographical] ~28-~28: Consider adding a comma here.
Context: ...lease follow Framework Design Guidelines * Please follow SOLID principles * Please follow...
(PLEASE_COMMA)
[typographical] ~29-~29: Consider adding a comma here.
Context: ...elines/) * Please follow SOLID principles * Please follow [Microsoft Engineering Guideline...
(PLEASE_COMMA)
[uncategorized] ~33-~33: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ...nes) ## Manifesto As aspiring Software Craftsmen we are raising the bar of professional ...
(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)
[typographical] ~35-~35: It appears that a comma is missing.
Context: ...g others learn the craft. Through this work we have come to value: * Not only work...
(DURING_THAT_TIME_COMMA)
[uncategorized] ~42-~42: The grammatical number of this noun doesn’t look right. Consider replacing it.
Context: ...d interactions, but also a community of professionals * Not only customer collaboration, but...
(AI_EN_LECTOR_REPLACEMENT_NOUN_NUMBER)
[uncategorized] ~46-~46: A comma might be missing here.
Context: ...That is, in pursuit of the items on the left we have found the items on the right to...
(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_PUNCTUATION_COMMA)
🪛 yamllint
.github/codecov.yml
[error] 2-2: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (3)
9-10: LGTM! Following the principle of least privilege
The read-all permission setting is appropriate as it restricts the workflow to read-only access by default.
11-18: LGTM! Job configuration is well-structured
The job configuration is appropriate with:
- Clear naming
- Suitable runner selection
- Properly scoped permissions for security events and OIDC authentication
1-42: Verify workflow uniqueness and scheduling
Let's ensure this workflow doesn't conflict with existing security analysis workflows.
✅ Verification successful
Multiple security analysis workflows detected - Consider consolidation
The repository has overlapping security analysis workflows:
scorecard.yml: Runs OSSF Scorecard analysis on Tuesdays at 17:45 UTCpipelines.yml: Includes CodeQL security analysis and SonarCloud analysis as part of the CI/CD pipeline
While these tools serve different purposes:
- OSSF Scorecard focuses on supply chain security practices
- CodeQL performs SAST (Static Application Security Testing)
- SonarCloud provides code quality and security analysis
The current setup is actually well-structured because:
- The analyses don't conflict in scheduling (Scorecard runs weekly, others run on PR/push)
- Each tool provides unique security insights
- The pipeline dependencies are properly ordered
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for similar security analysis workflows and their schedules
# Look for other security-related workflows
echo "Checking for similar security workflows..."
fd -e yml -e yaml . .github/workflows/ -x grep -l -E 'security|scorecard|codeql|analysis'
# Check for workflows with scheduled triggers
echo "Checking for workflows with scheduled triggers..."
fd -e yml -e yaml . .github/workflows/ -x grep -A 3 -E '^\s*schedule:'
Length of output: 503
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of pipelines.yml to understand if there are any overlapping security analyses
echo "Content of pipelines.yml:"
cat .github/workflows/pipelines.yml
# Let's also check if there are any other security-related jobs or steps in any workflow
echo -e "\nChecking for security-related steps in workflows:"
fd -e yml -e yaml . .github/workflows/ -x grep -B2 -A2 -E 'security|codeql|scan|analysis'
Length of output: 7369
.github/workflows/pipelines.yml (1)
6-7: LGTM: Appropriate path exclusions added
The addition of .codecov/** and .docfx/** to ignored paths is appropriate as these are configuration directories that don't affect the build process.
| persist-credentials: false | ||
|
|
||
| - name: "Run analysis" | ||
| uses: ossf/[email protected] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Update scorecard-action to latest version
The ossf/scorecard-action has a newer version available (v2.4.1) with security improvements.
- uses: ossf/[email protected]
+ uses: ossf/[email protected]📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| uses: ossf/[email protected].0 | |
| uses: ossf/[email protected].1 |
This pull request includes several important updates to the repository's configuration and documentation. The changes focus on implementing a code of conduct, setting up contribution guidelines, configuring Dependabot, and adding a new workflow for scorecard analysis.
Documentation updates:
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.mdfile to establish community standards and enforcement guidelines.CONTRIBUTING.mdfile to outline the process for contributing to the repository, including coding guidelines and the development process.Configuration updates:
codecov.ymlto ignore thetestdirectory for code coverage reporting.dependabot.ymlfile to automate dependency updates for NuGet packages and GitHub Actions workflows.scorecard.ymlfor running scorecard supply-chain security analysis on a scheduled basis and upon certain events.Minor changes:
pipelines.ymlto refine the paths ignored during pull request events.README.mdfile to display the project's security score.Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
CONTRIBUTING.mdfile outlining contribution guidelines and development processes.Improvements
Configuration Changes