cli: add rule id on details of Vulnerability #636
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
matheusalcantarazup
requested review from
iancardosozup,
lucasbrunozup,
nathanmartinszup and
wiliansilvazup
as code owners
matheusalcantarazup
force-pushed
the
print-rule-id
branch
from
f6f1414 to
8251b85
Compare
Add the rule id to the vulnerability details. This id will only be shown when a vulnerability is found by horusec-engine. Signed-off-by: Matheus Alcantara <matheus.alcantara@zup.com.br>
matheusalcantarazup
force-pushed
the
print-rule-id
branch
from
8251b85 to
7cb8f03
Compare
matheusalcantarazup
changed the title
nathanmartinszup
approved these changes
Oct 4, 2021
iancardosozup
approved these changes
Oct 4, 2021
matheusalcantarazup
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 14, 2021
On pr #636 we add the rule id on description of vulnerability, but the Details of vulnerability is used to generate the vulnerability hash, so adding the rule id on details generate a different hash which cause a breaking change. So this commit remove the rule id prefix from Details field of Vulnerability. Signed-off-by: Matheus Alcantara <matheus.alcantara@zup.com.br>
matheusalcantarazup
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 14, 2021
On pr #636 we add the rule id on description of vulnerability, but the Details of vulnerability is used to generate the vulnerability hash, so adding the rule id on details generate a different hash which cause a breaking change. So this commit remove the rule id prefix from Details field of Vulnerability. Signed-off-by: Matheus Alcantara <matheus.alcantara@zup.com.br>
matheusalcantarazup
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 14, 2021
On pr #636 we add the rule id on description of vulnerability, but the Details of vulnerability is used to generate the vulnerability hash, so adding the rule id on details generate a different hash which cause a breaking change. So this commit remove the rule id prefix from Details field of Vulnerability. Signed-off-by: Matheus Alcantara <matheus.alcantara@zup.com.br>
matheusalcantarazup
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2021
On pr #636 we add the rule id on description of vulnerability, but the Details of vulnerability is used to generate the vulnerability hash, so adding the rule id on details generate a different hash which cause a breaking change. So this commit remove the rule id prefix from Details field of Vulnerability and also add a workaround to users that is already using the new hash as a false positive and risk accept. To support the two ways of hashing the vulnerability a new field was added on Vulnerability struct that represents the breaking way, so we generate the two hashes of vulnerability and when we set the vulnerability to false positive/risk accept according to config file we use the two hashes to match. Signed-off-by: Matheus Alcantara <matheus.alcantara@zup.com.br>
matheusalcantarazup
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2021
On pr #636 we add the rule id on description of vulnerability, but the Details of vulnerability is used to generate the vulnerability hash, so adding the rule id on details generate a different hash which cause a breaking change. So this commit remove the rule id prefix from Details field of Vulnerability and also add a workaround to users that is already using the new hash as a false positive and risk accept. To support the two ways of hashing the vulnerability a new field was added on Vulnerability struct that represents the breaking way, so we generate the two hashes of vulnerability and when we set the vulnerability to false positive/risk accept according to config file we use the two hashes to match. Signed-off-by: Matheus Alcantara <matheus.alcantara@zup.com.br>
matheusalcantarazup
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2021
On pr #636 we add the rule id on description of vulnerability, but the Details of vulnerability is used to generate the vulnerability hash, so adding the rule id on details generate a different hash which cause a breaking change. So this commit remove the rule id prefix from Details field of Vulnerability and also add a workaround to users that is already using the new hash as a false positive and risk accept. To support the two ways of hashing the vulnerability a new field was added on Vulnerability struct that represents the breaking way, so we generate the two hashes of vulnerability and when we set the vulnerability to false positive/risk accept according to config file we use the two hashes to match. Fixes #680 Signed-off-by: Matheus Alcantara <matheus.alcantara@zup.com.br>
matheusalcantarazup
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2021
On pr #636 we add the rule id on description of vulnerability, but the Details of vulnerability is used to generate the vulnerability hash, so adding the rule id on details generate a different hash which cause a breaking change. So this commit remove the rule id prefix from Details field of Vulnerability and also add a workaround to users that is already using the new hash as a false positive and risk accept. To support the two ways of hashing the vulnerability a new field was added on Vulnerability struct that represents the breaking way, so we generate the two hashes of vulnerability and when we set the vulnerability to false positive/risk accept according to config file we use the two hashes to match. Fixes #680 Signed-off-by: Matheus Alcantara <matheus.alcantara@zup.com.br>
matheusalcantarazup
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2021
On pr #636 we add the rule id on description of vulnerability, but the Details of vulnerability is used to generate the vulnerability hash, so adding the rule id on details generate a different hash which cause a breaking change. So this commit remove the rule id prefix from Details field of Vulnerability and also add a workaround to users that is already using the new hash as a false positive and risk accept. To support the two ways of hashing the vulnerability a new field was added on Vulnerability struct that represents the breaking way, so we generate the two hashes of vulnerability and when we set the vulnerability to false positive/risk accept according to config file we use the two hashes to match. Fixes #680 Signed-off-by: Matheus Alcantara <matheus.alcantara@zup.com.br>
matheusalcantarazup
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2021
On pr #636 we add the rule id on description of vulnerability, but the Details of vulnerability is used to generate the vulnerability hash, so adding the rule id on details generate a different hash which cause a breaking change. So this commit remove the rule id prefix from Details field of Vulnerability and also add a workaround to users that is already using the new hash as a false positive and risk accept. To support the two ways of hashing the vulnerability a new field was added on Vulnerability struct that represents the breaking way, so we generate the two hashes of vulnerability and when we set the vulnerability to false positive/risk accept according to config file we use the two hashes to match. Fixes #680 Signed-off-by: Matheus Alcantara <matheus.alcantara@zup.com.br>
matheusalcantarazup
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2021
On pr #636 we add the rule id on description of vulnerability, but the Details of vulnerability is used to generate the vulnerability hash, so adding the rule id on details generate a different hash which cause a breaking change. So this commit remove the rule id prefix from Details field of Vulnerability and also add a workaround to users that is already using the new hash as a false positive and risk accept. To support the two ways of hashing the vulnerability a new field was added on Vulnerability struct that represents the breaking way, so we generate the two hashes of vulnerability and when we set the vulnerability to false positive/risk accept according to config file we use the two hashes to match. Fixes #680 Signed-off-by: Matheus Alcantara <matheus.alcantara@zup.com.br>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add the rule id to the vulnerability details. This id will only be
shown when a vulnerability is found by horusec-engine.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Alcantara matheus.alcantara@zup.com.br
- What I did
- How to verify it
- Description for the changelog