Fix for code scanning alert no. 30: Prototype-polluting assignment#7027
Fix for code scanning alert no. 30: Prototype-polluting assignment#7027
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@ardatan has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 24 minutes and 37 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. 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
📝 WalkthroughSummary by CodeRabbit
WalkthroughThe pull request adds additional error handling to the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Caller
participant MockStore
Caller->>MockStore: setImpl(typeName, key, value)
alt Invalid Identifier
MockStore-->>Caller: Throw error "Invalid typeName or key"
else Valid Identifier
MockStore->>MockStore: Check if store for typeName exists
alt Store Undefined
MockStore->>MockStore: Initialize store
end
MockStore-->>Caller: Process value as usual
end
Poem
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 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 (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
packages/mock/src/MockStore.ts (1)
266-271: Enhance error messages with security contextThe current error messages are clear but don't explain why these keys are invalid.
Consider improving the error messages to indicate the security implications:
- throw new Error(`Invalid typeName: ${typeName}`); + throw new Error(`Invalid typeName: ${typeName} - using JS prototype property names poses a security risk`); - throw new Error(`Invalid key: ${key}`); + throw new Error(`Invalid key: ${key} - using JS prototype property names poses a security risk`);
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/mock/src/MockStore.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/mock/src/MockStore.ts (1)
266-271: Good security enhancement!The added validation checks effectively prevent prototype pollution by rejecting reserved JavaScript property names (
__proto__,constructor, andprototype) for bothtypeNameandkeyparameters. This addresses the code scanning alert mentioned in the PR objectives.
| if (typeName === '__proto__' || typeName === 'constructor' || typeName === 'prototype') { | ||
| throw new Error(`Invalid typeName: ${typeName}`); | ||
| } | ||
| if (key === '__proto__' || key === 'constructor' || key === 'prototype') { | ||
| throw new Error(`Invalid key: ${key}`); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
Consider similar validation in other methods that access this.store
While this fix addresses the vulnerability in setImpl, other methods like has, get, getImpl, and insert also access this.store using typeName and key as property names without similar validation.
Consider extracting the validation logic into a reusable helper method:
+ private validateStoreKey(key: string, keyType: string): void {
+ if (key === '__proto__' || key === 'constructor' || key === 'prototype') {
+ throw new Error(`Invalid ${keyType}: ${key}`);
+ }
+ }
private setImpl<KeyT extends KeyTypeConstraints>(args: SetArgs<KeyT>) {
const { typeName, key, fieldName, fieldArgs, noOverride } = args;
let { value } = args;
if (isMockList(value)) {
value = deepResolveMockList(value);
}
- if (typeName === '__proto__' || typeName === 'constructor' || typeName === 'prototype') {
- throw new Error(`Invalid typeName: ${typeName}`);
- }
- if (key === '__proto__' || key === 'constructor' || key === 'prototype') {
- throw new Error(`Invalid key: ${key}`);
- }
+ this.validateStoreKey(typeName, 'typeName');
+ this.validateStoreKey(key as string, 'key');Then apply this validation to all methods that access this.store.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Check other methods that use typeName and key to access this.store
rg -A 3 -B 3 "this\.store\[(?:typeName|key)" --type ts packages/mock/src/MockStore.ts | grep -v "setImpl"Length of output: 2311
Action Required: Implement Uniform Key Validation Across All Store Access Methods
The issue in setImpl—ensuring that neither typeName nor key correspond to special properties like __proto__, constructor, or prototype—remains unaddressed in other methods (e.g. has, get, getImpl, insert, etc.). The grep output confirms that many of these methods directly access this.store without applying similar validation.
To resolve this:
- Extract a Validation Helper: Create a reusable helper such as:
private validateStoreKey(key: string, keyType: string): void { if (key === '__proto__' || key === 'constructor' || key === 'prototype') { throw new Error(`Invalid ${keyType}: ${key}`); } }
- Apply in All Relevant Methods: In every method that accesses
this.storeusingtypeNameorkey, callthis.validateStoreKey(...)before using them. For example, updatesetImpllike this:// before: - if (typeName === '__proto__' || typeName === 'constructor' || typeName === 'prototype') { - throw new Error(`Invalid typeName: ${typeName}`); - } - if (key === '__proto__' || key === 'constructor' || key === 'prototype') { - throw new Error(`Invalid key: ${key}`); - } // after: + this.validateStoreKey(typeName, 'typeName'); + this.validateStoreKey(key as string, 'key');
- Review All Store Accesses: Similarly, review methods like
has,get,getImpl,insert,filter, andfindto ensure they perform equivalent validation on bothtypeNameandkeybefore using them.
Please address these adjustments to ensure the vulnerability is mitigated uniformly across the class.
🚀 Snapshot Release (
|
| Package | Version | Info |
|---|---|---|
@graphql-tools/executor |
1.4.5-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/executor-apollo-link |
1.0.18-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/executor-envelop |
3.0.26-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/executor-legacy-ws |
1.1.16-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/executor-urql-exchange |
1.0.18-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/executor-yoga |
3.0.26-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/graphql-tag-pluck |
8.3.18-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
graphql-tools |
9.0.17-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/import |
7.0.17-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/links |
9.0.26-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/load |
8.0.18-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/apollo-engine-loader |
8.0.19-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/code-file-loader |
8.1.19-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/git-loader |
8.0.23-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/github-loader |
8.0.19-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/graphql-file-loader |
8.0.18-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/json-file-loader |
8.0.17-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/module-loader |
8.0.17-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/url-loader |
8.0.30-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/merge |
9.0.23-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/mock |
9.0.21-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/node-require |
7.0.19-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/relay-operation-optimizer |
7.0.18-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/resolvers-composition |
7.0.17-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/schema |
10.0.22-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
@graphql-tools/utils |
10.8.5-alpha-20250313124234-a3d061232db9cefabe856272b6dab452fbb71cf4 |
npm ↗︎ unpkg ↗︎ |
💻 Website PreviewThe latest changes are available as preview in: https://ed126f8a.graphql-tools.pages.dev |
…7027) Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Potential fix for https://github.com/ardatan/graphql-tools/security/code-scanning/30
To fix the prototype pollution issue, we need to ensure that
typeNameandkeycannot be set to__proto__,constructor, orprototype. This can be achieved by adding a validation step before using these variables as keys in thethis.storeobject. If eithertypeNameorkeymatches any of these restricted values, we should throw an error or handle it appropriately.Suggested fixes powered by Copilot Autofix. Review carefully before merging.