Add security rules for detecting hard-coded secrets in Swift applications #45
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces two new security rules for Swift applications targeting hard-coded secrets related to the Blowfish and ChaCha20 encryption algorithms. Each rule is categorized with a severity level of "warning" and employs pattern matching to identify instances where sensitive data is directly embedded in the source code. Additionally, corresponding snapshot and test configuration files are created to validate the functionality of these rules, ensuring comprehensive coverage of potential vulnerabilities. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
🪧 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 (
|
coderabbitai
bot
changed the title
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 10
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
tests/swift/blowfish-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.yml (1)
1-17: Add comments to document test cases and their purposes.While the test cases are functional, adding comments to explain each case would improve maintainability and make it clearer why certain patterns are considered valid or invalid.
id: blowfish-hardcoded-secret-swift +# Tests for detecting hardcoded secrets in Blowfish encryption implementation valid: + # Demonstrates correct usage with a variable password and proper error handling - | try Blowfish(key: password, iv: "123") invalid: + # Case 1: Hardcoded string literal converted to bytes - | let password: Array<UInt8> = Array("s33krit".utf8) try Blowfish(key: password, iv: "123") + # Case 2: Direct string literal usage - | try Blowfish(key: "hello", iv: "123") + # Case 3: Missing try keyword for error handling - | let password = Array("s33krit".utf8) Blowfish(key: password, iv: "123")tests/__snapshots__/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift-snapshot.yml (1)
1-215: Consider adding additional test cases for edge cases.While the current test cases cover basic scenarios, consider adding:
- Multi-line key assignments
- Keys derived from string interpolation
- Keys from concatenated strings
- Hex-encoded keys
- Base64-encoded keys
Would you like me to provide examples of these additional test cases?
tests/__snapshots__/blowfish-hardcoded-secret-swift-snapshot.yml (1)
3-38: Security: Add labels for encryption parametersTo improve security analysis, consider adding specific labels for security-critical parameters like key length and encoding.
Example addition:
- source: utf8 style: parameter start: 27 end: 31 - source: Array style: parameter start: 14 end: 19rules/swift/security/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift.yml (1)
1-13: Consider adding Swift-specific security references.The rule metadata is well-structured with appropriate severity and clear messaging. Consider enhancing the references section with Swift-specific security guidelines.
Add these additional references:
[REFERENCES] - https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Secrets_Management_Cheat_Sheet.html + - https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security + - https://www.swift.org/security/
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
- rules/swift/security/blowfish-hardcoded-secret-swift.yml (1 hunks)
- rules/swift/security/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift.yml (1 hunks)
- tests/snapshots/blowfish-hardcoded-secret-swift-snapshot.yml (1 hunks)
- tests/snapshots/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift-snapshot.yml (1 hunks)
- tests/swift/blowfish-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.yml (1 hunks)
- tests/swift/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.yml (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (11)
tests/swift/blowfish-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.yml (1)
1-17: Verify test coverage with the security rule implementation.The test cases should align with the patterns defined in the security rule file.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the test cases and rule patterns to ensure proper alignment.
Test cases properly align with security rule patterns
After analyzing the rule file and test cases, I can confirm that the test coverage is comprehensive and correctly aligns with the security rule implementation. The test cases cover all the defined patterns:
- Direct string literals in try expressions
- Direct string literals in regular expressions
- UTF-8 string conversions with Array constructor
- Variable declarations with hardcoded strings
- Both try and non-try expression variants
The invalid test cases appropriately match the rule's detection patterns for hardcoded secrets, while the valid case demonstrates proper usage without hardcoded values.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify alignment between test cases and rule patterns # Test: Check if the security rule file exists and contains matching patterns rg -l "blowfish.*hardcoded.*secret" rules/swift/security/ rg -A 5 "pattern:" rules/swift/security/blowfish-hardcoded-secret-swift.ymlLength of output: 1007
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the complete rule file content to understand all patterns cat rules/swift/security/blowfish-hardcoded-secret-swift.yml # Also get any other similar security rules for Blowfish fd blowfish rules/swift/security/ --exec cat {}Length of output: 18262
tests/swift/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.yml (2)
1-1: LGTM! Clear and descriptive test identifier.The test ID follows good naming conventions and clearly indicates the target algorithm, issue type, and language.
1-17: Verify consistency with other encryption algorithm test configurations.Let's ensure this test configuration follows similar patterns used for other encryption algorithms.
✅ Verification successful
Let me generate another verification script to look at the actual content of similar encryption test files, particularly focusing on Swift encryption tests since they would be most relevant.
Test configuration follows consistent patterns with other encryption tests
The chacha20 test configuration follows the same structure and patterns as other encryption-related tests in the codebase:
- It maintains the standard
valid/invalidsections like all other test files- The test cases for hardcoded secrets in Swift encryption (chacha20 and blowfish) follow identical patterns:
- Valid cases use a
passwordvariable- Invalid cases check for hardcoded strings and array literals
- The structure aligns with other encryption tests (like ECB cipher, RC4) that validate secure vs insecure usage patterns
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for similar test configurations and their structure # Find all encryption-related test configurations echo "Finding all encryption-related test configurations:" fd -e yml -e yaml . tests/ | grep -i 'secret\|encrypt\|cipher' # Compare structure with other test files echo -e "\nChecking for consistent structure across test files:" for f in $(fd -e yml -e yaml . tests/ | grep -i 'secret\|encrypt\|cipher'); do echo "=== $f ===" grep -A 1 "^valid:\|^invalid:" "$f" || true doneLength of output: 18822
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get content of related Swift encryption test files echo "=== Content of chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.yml ===" cat tests/swift/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.yml echo -e "\n=== Content of blowfish-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.yml ===" cat tests/swift/blowfish-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.yml # Also check a few other encryption-related test files from different languages echo -e "\n=== Content of ecb-cipher-java-test.yml ===" cat tests/java/ecb-cipher-java-test.yml echo -e "\n=== Content of insecure-cipher-algorithm-rc4-python-test.yml ===" cat tests/python/insecure-cipher-algorithm-rc4-python-test.ymlLength of output: 2534
tests/__snapshots__/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift-snapshot.yml (2)
1-2: LGTM: Clear identification of the security rule.The snapshot file is properly identified for the ChaCha20 hardcoded secret detection rule in Swift.
3-38: Comprehensive test coverage for various hardcoded secret patterns.The snapshot includes a good variety of test cases covering:
- Direct string literals (
"hello","s33krit")- UTF-8 array conversions
- Variable assignments
- Error handling with
try- Different parameter combinations (key-only, key with IV)
However, there are some security considerations to note:
- The test values use predictable patterns (
"hello","s33krit","123")- The IV value
"123"is particularly weak for cryptographic purposesLet's verify if these test cases align with the rule definition:
Also applies to: 39-85, 86-138, 139-177, 178-215
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the rule definition and test cases to properly verify the alignment.
Test cases correctly align with the rule definition and security objectives
The test cases in the snapshot perfectly align with the rule definition which aims to detect hardcoded secrets in ChaCha20 encryption usage. The rule specifically looks for:
- Direct string literals in key parameters
- Array conversions of string literals to UTF-8
- Both try and non-try expressions
- Variable assignments of hardcoded strings
The test cases cover all these patterns comprehensively:
- Direct usage:
chacha20(key: Array("hello".utf8))- Variable assignments:
let password = Array("s33krit".utf8)- Try expressions:
try chacha20(key: Array("hello".utf8))While the review comment raised concerns about predictable patterns and weak IV values, these are actually appropriate for test cases as they:
- Demonstrate the rule's detection capabilities
- Provide clear, readable examples
- Focus on the pattern detection rather than cryptographic strength
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if the rule file exists and contains matching patterns rg -l "chacha20.*key" rules/swift/security/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift.yml # Verify test configuration rg -l "chacha20.*hardcoded.*secret" tests/swift/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.ymlLength of output: 224
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the rule definition cat rules/swift/security/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift.yml # Check the test configuration cat tests/swift/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.yml # Look for any other related test files fd chacha20.*swift.*testLength of output: 9687
tests/__snapshots__/blowfish-hardcoded-secret-swift-snapshot.yml (1)
1-2: LGTM: File structure follows the snapshot test format.The file is properly structured with an appropriate id and snapshots section.
rules/swift/security/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift.yml (3)
272-284: LGTM! Comprehensive pattern matching structure.The rule definition effectively combines all utility patterns to catch various forms of hard-coded ChaCha20 secrets. The separation between try_expression and call_expression patterns ensures thorough coverage.
203-218: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionOptimize pattern matching by using consistent stopBy directives.
The nested pattern uses redundant
stopBy: neighbordirectives which could be consolidated to improve readability and maintenance.Consider simplifying the stopBy directives:
stopBy: neighbor kind: navigation_expression all: - has: - stopBy: neighbor + stopBy: end kind: line_string_literal has: - stopBy: neighbor + stopBy: end kind: line_str_text - has: - stopBy: neighbor + stopBy: end kind: navigation_suffix has: - stopBy: neighbor + stopBy: end kind: simple_identifier regex: "^utf8$"Likely invalid or redundant comment.
1-284: Verify test coverage for security patterns.Let's ensure comprehensive test coverage for this security rule.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the output, I can see that there are comprehensive test files for the chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift rule, including both test cases and snapshots. Let me analyze the test coverage:
- Test file exists:
tests/swift/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.ymltests/__snapshots__/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift-snapshot.yml
- Test cases coverage:
tests/swift/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.yml:valid: - | try chacha20(key: password, iv: "123") tests/swift/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift-test.yml:invalid: - | let password: Array<UInt8> = Array("s33krit".utf8) try chacha20(key: password, iv: "123") - | try chacha20(key: "hello", iv: "123")The test coverage appears complete with:
- Valid case: Using a non-hardcoded password variable
- Invalid cases:
- Hardcoded string converted to bytes
- Direct hardcoded string usage
Test coverage is adequate and properly validates the security rule.
The test cases appropriately cover:
- Direct string literals
- String-to-byte array conversions
- Both valid and invalid patterns
- Different parameter positions and contexts
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for test files and their coverage # Test: Look for corresponding test files echo "Checking for test files..." fd "chacha20.*test" --type f # Test: Check test cases in snapshot files echo -e "\nChecking snapshot coverage..." fd "chacha20.*snapshot" --type f # Test: Verify if we have both positive and negative test cases echo -e "\nAnalyzing test cases..." rg -A 5 "testCases:|valid:|invalid:"Length of output: 100157
rules/swift/security/blowfish-hardcoded-secret-swift.yml (2)
1-284: Verify consistency with other encryption-related rules.Let's ensure this rule follows similar patterns and severity levels as other encryption-related rules in the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about these rules to ensure a thorough verification.
This will help us compare the structure, patterns, and messaging consistency across these security rules.
Based on the analysis of the related rules, I can now provide the final verification response:
The Blowfish hardcoded secret rule is consistent with other encryption rules
The rule is well-aligned with similar security rules in the codebase, particularly with the
chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift.ymlrule. Key observations:
- Both rules share the same severity level (warning)
- Identical message and note sections, including CWE-798 reference
- Similar pattern matching structure for detecting hardcoded secrets
- Consistent pattern detection for both direct usage and UTF-8 encoded strings
The rule maintains the established pattern for detecting cryptographic misuse in the codebase and follows the same security standards as other encryption-related rules.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find other encryption-related rules and compare their patterns echo "Searching for other encryption-related rules..." fd -e yml -e yaml . rules/swift/security/ -x rg -l "severity|encryption|crypto|secret" # Check their severity levels echo "Checking severity levels of similar rules..." fd -e yml -e yaml . rules/swift/security/ -x rg "^severity: "Length of output: 572
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get detailed content of the related encryption rules echo "=== Content of chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift.yml ===" cat rules/swift/security/chacha20-hardcoded-secret-swift.yml echo -e "\n=== Content of insecure-biometrics-swift.yml ===" cat rules/swift/security/insecure-biometrics-swift.ymlLength of output: 10263
78-123: Verify pattern matching for computed properties.The pattern for instance matching might miss computed properties. Consider adding validation to ensure the rule catches cases where the key is computed at runtime but still contains hard-coded secrets.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Tests