🛡️ Sentinel: [security improvement] 텍스트 입력 필드에 maxlength 추가

[seonghobae]

🚨 Severity: MEDIUM

💡 Vulnerability: 제한 없는 텍스트 입력으로 인한 잠재적인 DoS 리스크

컴포넌트 갤러리의 텍스트 및 이메일 입력 필드에 길이 제한이 없어, 악의적인 사용자가 비정상적으로 긴 페이로드를 입력하여 클라이언트 리소스를 고갈시키거나 후속 처리 로직에 부하를 줄 수 있는 위험이 있었습니다.

🎯 Impact:

제한 없는 입력 처리는 메모리 부하나 파싱 지연을 유발할 수 있습니다.

🔧 Fix:

components/index.html 파일의 type="text" 및 type="email" 입력 필드에 maxlength="64" 속성을 추가하여 애플리케이션 경계에서 입력 크기를 제한하는 방어적 조치를 취했습니다.

✅ Verification:

추가된 test_component_gallery_inputs_have_length_limits 테스트가 통과하는 것을 pytest를 통해 확인했습니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 16553036157369619268 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[github-advanced-security]

You are seeing this message because GitHub Code Scanning has recently been set up for this repository, or this pull request contains the workflow file for the Code Scanning tool.

What Enabling Code Scanning Means:

• The 'Security' tab will display more code scanning analysis results (e.g., for the default branch).
• Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results.
• You will be able to see the analysis results for the pull request's branch on this overview once the scans have completed and the checks have passed.

For more information about GitHub Code Scanning, check out the documentation.

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 30b450aa407522a1cca606b0abc5128696cbb532
• Workflow run: 29259535177
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: APPROVE (exit 0)

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Test (5 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (5 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including components/index.html, tests/test_component_gallery_security.py.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects components/index.html to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: deterministic repair does not infer browser runtime execution; source-backed DOM/UI evidence and trusted workflow receipts were reviewed when present, and non-web surfaces used API/CLI/log/docs/workflow evidence instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

Adversarial validation

{"status":"passed","probes":[{"path":"components/index.html","line":35,"hypothesis":"Adding `maxlength` to input fields could break existing functionality if the limit is too restrictive.","attack_or_counterexample":"Input exceeding the 64-character limit.","evidence":"Inspected the diff and verified that `maxlength=\"64\"` is added to all relevant input fields without breaking existing functionality.","outcome":"falsified"},{"path":"tests/test_component_gallery_security.py","line":64,"hypothesis":"The new test for `maxlength` might not catch all edge cases.","attack_or_counterexample":"Inputs with `type=\"checkbox\"` or `type=\"radio\"` are excluded from the test.","evidence":"Verified the test logic correctly skips non-text inputs and ensures `maxlength` is present on text-based inputs.","outcome":"falsified"}],"residual_risk":"Low; the changes are well-tested and focused on security improvements."}

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: Security improvement for input fields with maxlength constraints
• Head SHA: b782363a0a9bf49ffc0e14023d9ac52b62d6f6e1
• Workflow run: 29257386614
• Workflow attempt: 1

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including components/index.html, tests/test_component_gallery_security.py.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects components/index.html to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: deterministic repair does not infer browser runtime execution; source-backed DOM/UI evidence and trusted workflow receipts were reviewed when present, and non-web surfaces used API/CLI/log/docs/workflow evidence instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

Adversarial validation

{"status":"passed","probes":[{"path":"components/index.html","line":35,"hypothesis":"Input fields without `maxlength` could allow excessive input leading to DoS","attack_or_counterexample":"Attempt to input a very long string in the name or email fields","evidence":"Inspected the diff and verified `maxlength=\"64\"` is added to all relevant input fields","outcome":"falsified"},{"path":"tests/test_component_gallery_security.py","line":64,"hypothesis":"Test coverage for input length limits might be missing","attack_or_counterexample":"Review the test case `test_component_gallery_inputs_have_length_limits`","evidence":"Verified the test checks for `maxlength` in all text-based inputs, excluding checkboxes and radios","outcome":"falsified"}],"residual_risk":"Low; the changes are well-tested and address the identified security risk."}

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: Security improvement for input fields with maxlength added
• Head SHA: 30b450aa407522a1cca606b0abc5128696cbb532
• Workflow run: 29259535177
• Workflow attempt: 1