test 5 #11
test 5 #11
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR adds a comment to identify a SQL injection vulnerability in the application code.
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
| try: | ||
| # Execute the user's SQL query | ||
| cursor.execute(sql) | ||
| cursor.execute(sql) # SQL inecjtion |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Corrected spelling of 'inecjtion' to 'injection'.
| cursor.execute(sql) # SQL inecjtion | |
| cursor.execute(sql) # SQL injection |
![corgea[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/673913?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
|
||
| # 4 - SQL Injection via input | ||
| elif 'sql' in request.form: | ||
| sql = request.form['sql'] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SQL Injection ( 🔴 High ) - The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. View in Corgea ↗
More Details
🎟️Issue Explanation: The code directly takes user input to build an SQL command, risking attackers changing the query to access or damage data. This is called SQL Injection.
- The input "request.form['sql']" is used raw, allowing attackers to insert malicious SQL like "' OR 1=1 --".
- This can modify SQL queries, leading to data leaks, deletion, or unauthorized access.
- Since SQL commands are important and often handle sensitive info, this flaw can cause serious security breaches.
🪄Fix Explanation: The fix replaces directly executing raw SQL from user input with a parameterized, allowlisted set of predefined queries, preventing arbitrary SQL execution and thus mitigating SQL injection risks.
- Replaces `"sql = request.form['sql']"` with `"query_key = request.form['sql']"`, treating input as a key, not raw SQL.
- Introduces `"allowed_queries"`, a dictionary of predefined SQL statements and their parameters, enforcing a whitelist.
- Checks if `"query_key"` exists in `"allowed_queries"`, raising an error for unsupported keys.
- Uses parameterized queries via `"cursor.execute(sql, params)"` to safely insert user-supplied ID, preventing injection.
- Eliminates direct execution of user-supplied SQL, drastically reducing injection attack surface.
💡Important Instructions: Ensure the upstream code always provides valid query keys and validate the
id parameter is an integer before processing to avoid type errors.
| sql = request.form['sql'] | |
| query_key = request.form['sql'] | |
| try: | |
| # Execute the user's SQL query | |
| # Execute an allowlisted, parameterized query instead of raw user SQL | |
| allowed_queries = { | |
| 'get_all_users': ("SELECT id, username FROM users", ()), | |
| 'get_user_by_id': ("SELECT id, username FROM users WHERE id = ?", (int(request.form.get('id', -1)),)), | |
| } | |
| if query_key not in allowed_queries: | |
| raise ValueError("Unsupported query key") |
![corgea-dev-local-2[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/69728621?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| try: | ||
| # Execute the user's SQL query | ||
| cursor.execute(sql) | ||
| cursor.execute(sql) # SQL inecjtion |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SQL Injection ( 🔴 Critical ) - The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. View in Corgea ↗
More Details
🎟️Issue Explanation: The code runs SQL commands built using user input without proper checks, letting attackers change the commands and access or harm the database.
- The code calls "cursor.execute(sql)" where "sql" includes unsanitized user data, enabling SQL Injection attacks.
- An attacker can insert SQL code like 'OR 1=1--' to bypass checks or extract sensitive data by changing the query logic.
- This impacts security since the database may hold private or critical information accessible due to improper input handling.
We could not generate a fix for this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
mark this issue as a false positive
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Got it—I’ll mark this as a false positive. If there’s any context you want me to note (e.g., demo-only code or non-user-controlled input), tell me and I’ll add it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I’ll mark this as a false positive for the SQL injection at insecure-app/app.py:49. If you want me to note any context (e.g., demo-only), tell me and I’ll add it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Got it—I won’t take any action right now. If you want me to mark it as false positive, accepted risk, fixed, duplicate, fix in progress, or request more info, just say the word.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Got it—I’ll mark this vulnerability as accepted risk. If you want me to add rationale or compensating controls, tell me and I’ll record that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the compensating control is that it's an internal microservice talking to other trusted microservices
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Got it—I’ll record this as accepted risk with the compensating control: internal microservice communicating only with trusted microservices. Want me to add monitoring details or a review date?
No description provided.