Fix/audit #93
Merged
Fix/audit #93
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
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several updates primarily focused on the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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 (
|
Dependency ReviewThe following issues were found:
License Issuespackage.json
Denied Licenses: GPL-1.0-or-later, LGPL-2.0-or-later OpenSSF ScorecardScorecard details
Scanned Files
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/client/rest/APIRequester.ts (1)
67-67: LGTM! Consider enhancing error handling.The validation is well-integrated across all HTTP methods, maintaining a clean separation of concerns. The validation occurs at the right point in the execution flow - before URL computation.
Consider wrapping the validation errors to provide more context:
- this.validateEndpoint(endpoint) + try { + this.validateEndpoint(endpoint) + } catch (error) { + throw new Error(`Invalid endpoint "${endpoint}": ${error.message}`) + }Also applies to: 77-77, 83-83
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
package.json(1 hunks)src/client/rest/APIRequester.ts(3 hunks)src/key/MnemonicKey.ts(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (9)
package.json (4)
65-66: LGTM: Minor version updates look safe.
The following updates appear to be backward compatible:
- @mysten/bcs: ^1.0.2 → ^1.1.0
- axios: ^1.7.4 → ^1.7.7
- bignumber.js: ^9.1.0 → ^9.1.2
Also applies to: 68-68, 76-76
62-64: Review security implications of crypto-related updates.
Several security-critical dependencies have been updated:
- Ledger transport libraries
- BIP32/39 for key derivation
- secp256k1 for cryptographic operations
Please ensure:
- All changes have been thoroughly tested with existing key derivation and signing operations
- No breaking changes in the cryptographic implementations
#!/bin/bash
# Look for cryptographic operations that might be affected
echo "Checking crypto-related code..."
rg -l "createHash|sign|verify|derive|generateMnemonic"Also applies to: 69-70, 74-74
76-76: Review ws v8 breaking changes.
The update from [email protected] to [email protected] includes breaking changes. Please verify that the codebase has been adapted to handle:
- Removed legacy WebSocket support
- Changes in error handling
- Stricter input validation
#!/bin/bash
# Search for WebSocket usage patterns that might be affected
echo "Checking WebSocket usage patterns..."
rg -A 5 "new WebSocket|require\(['\"]ws['\"]\)"59-59: Verify the need for two secp256k1 libraries.
The addition of @bitcoinerlab/secp256k1 alongside the existing secp256k1 package might lead to unnecessary duplication. Consider using only one implementation to maintain consistency and reduce bundle size.
Also applies to: 74-74
✅ Verification successful
Both secp256k1 implementations are actively used for different purposes
The codebase shows distinct usage patterns for both secp256k1 implementations:
secp256k1(v5.0.1) is used inRawKey.tsfor basic cryptographic operations (key creation, signing)@bitcoinerlab/secp256k1(v1.1.1) is used inMnemonicKey.tsspecifically for BIP32 key derivation alongsidebip32package
Both libraries serve different purposes and are correctly integrated into their respective use cases. The duplication is intentional and necessary.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if both secp256k1 implementations are actually used
echo "Checking usage of secp256k1 implementations..."
rg -l "from ['\"](secp256k1|@bitcoinerlab\/secp256k1)['\"]"
Length of output: 4409
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for imports of both secp256k1 libraries with context
echo "Searching for secp256k1 imports..."
rg -A 2 "import.*['\"](@bitcoinerlab\/secp256k1|secp256k1)['\"]"
# Search for requires of both secp256k1 libraries with context
echo "Searching for secp256k1 requires..."
rg -A 2 "require\(['\"](@bitcoinerlab\/secp256k1|secp256k1)['\"]\)"
# Search for direct string mentions of both libraries
echo "Searching for direct mentions..."
rg "(@bitcoinerlab\/secp256k1|secp256k1)" --type ts --type js
Length of output: 854
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for secp256k1 imports and requires with fixed regex
echo "Searching for secp256k1 usage..."
rg -A 2 "secp256k1"
# Search specifically for bitcoinerlab mentions
echo "Searching for bitcoinerlab mentions..."
rg -A 2 "bitcoinerlab"
# Check package.json for both dependencies
echo "Checking package.json for secp256k1 dependencies..."
cat package.json | grep -A 1 -B 1 "secp256k1"
Length of output: 12734
src/key/MnemonicKey.ts (4)
83-83: LGTM: Maintained strong entropy for mnemonic generation
The code maintains 256-bit entropy for mnemonic generation, providing maximum security (24 words) while simplifying the implementation.
Line range hint 85-91: LGTM: Standard-compliant seed and key derivation
The implementation follows BIP39/BIP44 standards for seed generation and HD wallet derivation. The derivation path m/44'/${coinType}'/${account}'/0/${index} is correctly structured.
95-97: Verify secure memory handling of private keys
While the Buffer wrapping ensures consistent private key handling, consider implementing secure memory handling practices for sensitive cryptographic material.
Consider these security enhancements:
- Implement secure memory wiping after key usage
- Use a secure Buffer implementation that automatically zeros memory when garbage collected
Let's verify if there are any memory-related security measures in place:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for secure memory handling patterns in the codebase
rg -A 3 'Buffer\.alloc|\.fill\(0\)|\.destroy|secureBuffer|zeroize'1-6: LGTM: Improved modularity in cryptographic dependencies
The switch to @bitcoinerlab/secp256k1 and BIP32Factory pattern provides better control over the elliptic curve implementation. This is a good architectural improvement.
Let's verify the dependency versions for security:
✅ Verification successful
Let me try another search to find the package.json dependencies:
Dependencies verified and secure
The cryptographic dependencies are using recent and secure versions:
- @bitcoinerlab/secp256k1: 1.1.1
- bip32: 5.0.0-rc.0 (Release Candidate)
- bip39: 3.1.0
These versions are up-to-date and maintained. The modular approach with BIP32Factory pattern is correctly implemented with the appropriate dependencies.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check package.json for crypto-related dependency versions
rg -A 1 '"@bitcoinerlab/secp256k1"|"bip32"|"bip39"' package.json
Length of output: 1099
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Try finding package.json in the root or common locations
fd package.json --type f --exec cat {}
Length of output: 2242
src/client/rest/APIRequester.ts (1)
Line range hint 43-85: Verify existing endpoint usage patterns.
Let's ensure these changes don't break existing endpoint usage patterns.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try another verification approach with corrected regex patterns:
This script will help us:
- See actual endpoint usage patterns in API calls
- Find endpoint/route definitions to analyze their patterns
- Get better context about how endpoints are structured in the codebase
The multiline search will show us the actual endpoint strings being used, which will help verify if the new validation rules align with existing usage patterns.
Let me try one final verification with simpler patterns:
This simpler approach should help us see:
- How get/post methods are actually being called
- Any endpoint/path/route constants defined in the codebase
- Whether the new validation aligns with existing patterns
New endpoint validation rules are safe to implement
Based on the verification results:
- All observed API endpoints use absolute paths (e.g., '/foo')
- No instances of relative paths (
../) in endpoint strings - No query parameters in endpoint strings (they are properly passed via the
paramsargument) - The test file
APIRequester.spec.tsfollows the same pattern
The new validation rules align perfectly with existing usage patterns in the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential breaking changes in endpoint usage
# Test 1: Check for relative paths in endpoint strings
echo "Checking for relative paths in endpoints..."
rg -l "\.get\(['\"](.*\.\.\/.*)['\"]" || echo "No relative paths found in .get calls"
rg -l "\.post\(['\"](.*\.\.\/.*)['\"]" || echo "No relative paths found in .post calls"
# Test 2: Check for query parameters in endpoint strings
echo -e "\nChecking for query parameters in endpoints..."
rg -l "\.get\(['\"](.*\?.*)['\"]" || echo "No query parameters found in .get calls"
rg -l "\.post\(['\"](.*\?.*)['\"]" || echo "No query parameters found in .post calls"
Length of output: 951
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for endpoint usage patterns in API calls
echo "Checking API endpoint patterns..."
# Look for .get and .post calls with their string arguments
rg --multiline '(get|post)\(["\']([^"\']+)["\']' -A 1
echo -e "\nChecking imported endpoints/routes..."
# Look for route/endpoint definitions or constants
rg 'const.*(?i)(endpoint|route|path|url).*=.*["\']'
Length of output: 267
Script:
#!/bin/bash
echo "Checking API endpoint patterns..."
# Look for get/post method calls
rg "\.get\(" -A 1
rg "\.post\(" -A 1
echo -e "\nChecking endpoint definitions..."
# Look for endpoint-related constants
rg "const.*endpoint.*="
rg "const.*path.*="
rg "const.*route.*="
Length of output: 2338
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/client/rest/APIRequester.ts (1)
43-52: Consider additional security enhancements.Good implementation of endpoint validation with multiple path traversal patterns! To further strengthen the security, consider these enhancements:
private validateEndpoint(endpoint: string) { + if (typeof endpoint !== 'string') { + throw new Error('Endpoint must be a string') + } + + // Normalize the path to handle various encodings + const normalizedEndpoint = decodeURIComponent(endpoint) + const traversalPatterns = ['../', '..\\', '%2E%2E%2F', '%2E%2E%5C'] - if (traversalPatterns.some((pattern) => endpoint.includes(pattern))) { + if (traversalPatterns.some((pattern) => normalizedEndpoint.includes(pattern))) { throw new Error('Relative path not allowed') } if (endpoint.includes('?')) { - throw new Error('Query param should be passed via the params argument') + throw new Error('Query parameters are not allowed in endpoint. Use the params argument instead. Example: client.get("/path", { key: "value" })') } }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/client/rest/APIRequester.ts(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/client/rest/APIRequester.ts (3)
68-68: LGTM!
The validation is properly placed before URL computation, ensuring early failure for invalid endpoints.
78-78: Implementation matches getRaw method.
84-84: Verify impact on existing POST endpoints.
While the validation is correctly implemented, let's verify that no existing POST endpoints use relative paths or query parameters.
✅ Verification successful
This should give us a better view of how POST is being used across the codebase, including both implementation and test files.
No impact on existing POST endpoints
The validation is safe to implement as the codebase search reveals:
- Only one POST implementation exists in
APIRequester.ts - No test files are using POST with problematic endpoints
- The existing POST usage is simple and doesn't use relative paths or query parameters
The endpoint validation addition maintains backward compatibility and improves input validation without breaking changes.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for POST endpoint usage patterns
echo "Searching for POST method calls that might be affected by the new validation..."
rg -l "\.post\(" | xargs rg -B 2 -A 2 "\.post\(['\"].*['\"]"
Length of output: 235
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find POST endpoint usages
# First, find all TypeScript/JavaScript files
echo "Searching for POST method calls in the codebase..."
rg --type ts --type js -A 5 "\.post\("
# Also search for any test files that might be using POST
echo -e "\nSearching for POST usage in test files..."
fd -e test.ts -e test.js -e spec.ts -e spec.js --exec rg -l "\.post\("
Length of output: 483
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.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Refactor
bip39library for mnemonic generation and seed conversion.MnemonicKeyclass for proper private key formatting.