Query Environment Information for Workflow Jobs
AdnaneKhan opened this issue · 6 comments
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Many workflows that would be vulnerable to pwn requests or injection use a deployment environment with required approvals to protect a job from running. Usually this will manifest as a single job that runs in an environment in the beginning, and all other jobs will depend on that check succeeding.
It is possible to query a list of environments and their rules using the REST API without authentication. By adding this feature it will be possible to update cypher queries to reduce false positives.
Describe the solution you'd like
I'd like to see an Environment graph object attached to each job. The environment object should track the environment name and if the protection_rules array contains one or more entries of the required_reviewers class.
Here is an example of a repository that uses deployment environments: https://api.github.com/repos/netflix/mantis/environments
Describe alternatives you've considered
None, this is pretty clear cut because environment gating with required approvals will require manual verification to ensure a detection is not a false positive.
Additional context
Mentioned this in an earlier issue - #111, so this covers adding the environment check.
I'm actually working on implementing this and will have a PR open soon!
This is a good idea!
Isn't the environment should be a job property and not an entirely new node?
Or maybe each job can have a review_required boolean property so we will be able to filter out all those that require any approval.
WDYT?
@oreenlivnicode @AdnaneKhan
Are there additional significant details within the protection rules, @AdnaneKhan ? If there are, we should consider representing them as individual nodes; otherwise, I agree we can track them as a Boolean property associated with a Job.
Implementing this could be beneficial in reducing false positives. However, if an exploit is indeed present, we will still report it. The information about the protection rules would be used as context for the disclosure process.
Are there additional significant details within the protection rules, @AdnaneKhan ? If there are, we should consider representing them as individual nodes; otherwise, I agree we can track them as a Boolean property associated with a Job.
Implementing this could be beneficial in reducing false positives. However, if an exploit is indeed present, we will still report it. The information about the protection rules would be used as context for the disclosure process.
There are 2 information classes that are relevant from an exploitability standpoint:
- required approvals (which I mentioned)
- deployment branches and tags https://docs.github.com/en/actions/deployment/targeting-different-environments/using-environments-for-deployment#deployment-branches-and-tags
I think adding it as a node with with the required approvals property to start will allow Raven to better handle future checks or conditions that GitHub adds to environments.
Also, curious about where in the code it would be best to add the query to the environments API endpoint?
Should Raven make the call when it is creating a job from dict and the environment field is present or at the same time it pulls the workflow from the contents API?
In the current architecture of raven, the Github API queries only take place in the downloader, so it should take place when it pulls the workflow.
If you want to pass metadata about the workflow / composite action to the indexer part, you will have to add it as a field and value to the redis hash of the object (db 1 and 2), similar to the way we implemented url or is_public.
In the current architecture of raven, the Github API queries only take place in the
downloader, so it should take place when it pulls the workflow.If you want to pass metadata about the
workflow/composite actionto theindexerpart, you will have to add it as a field and value to the redis hash of the object (db 1 and 2), similar to the way we implementedurloris_public.
Thanks for the details! I'd like to avoid adding an API call for every workflow (since most probably don't use environments, and that slows the overall run down). Could add a quick check to see if environment: is present in the workflow before querying but that seems a bit messy to me. Thoughts?