🛡️ Sentinel: [HIGH] 경로 순회(Zip Slip) 검증 우회 취약점 패치#635
Conversation
이 커밋은 Python 스크립트에서 발생하는 Zip Slip(디렉토리 순회) 취약점을 수정합니다.
기존 코드에서는 `pathlib.Path(member.filename).parts`를 사용하여 '..' 패턴을 검사했지만,
이 방식은 POSIX 환경(예: Linux 기반 CI 러너)에서 백슬래시('\')를 디렉토리 구분자로 인식하지 않아
우회될 수 있는 문제가 있었습니다.
이를 방지하기 위해 백슬래시를 슬래시('/')로 변환한 뒤 분할하여 '..' 포함 여부를 검사하도록
`scripts/checks/extract_scorecard_artifact.py` 및 `scripts/release/extract_release_artifacts.py`
파일을 수정했습니다.
|
👋 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 New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 scripts/checks/extract_scorecard_artifact.py, scripts/release/extract_release_artifacts.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 scripts/checks/extract_scorecard_artifact.py 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: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed 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.
- Result: APPROVE
- Reason: The PR addresses a high-severity path traversal (Zip Slip) vulnerability with clear fixes and passes all required tests.
- Head SHA:
9c78c340b36a6e9a1ec4489db396ac2a712beb55 - Workflow run: 29179632319
- Workflow attempt: 1
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"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass. Review outcome1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
Coverage evidenceCoverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence. Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: ci.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: ci.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (7 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (7 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
|
이 커밋은 Python 스크립트에서 발생하는 Zip Slip(디렉토리 순회) 취약점을 수정합니다.
기존 코드에서는 `pathlib.Path(member.filename).parts`를 사용하여 '..' 패턴을 검사했지만,
이 방식은 POSIX 환경(예: Linux 기반 CI 러너)에서 백슬래시('\')를 디렉토리 구분자로 인식하지 않아
우회될 수 있는 문제가 있었습니다.
이를 방지하기 위해 백슬래시를 슬래시('/')로 변환한 뒤 분할하여 '..' 포함 여부를 검사하도록
`scripts/checks/extract_scorecard_artifact.py` 및 `scripts/release/extract_release_artifacts.py`
파일을 수정했습니다.
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Review outcome
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was
failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head. -
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
-
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current headf49064497847e2181496343aec6acf34c0586fcc. -
Head SHA:
f49064497847e2181496343aec6acf34c0586fcc -
Workflow run: 29198583927
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: ci.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: ci.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (7 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (7 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
이 커밋은 Python 스크립트에서 발생하는 Zip Slip(디렉토리 순회) 취약점을 수정합니다.
기존 코드에서는 `pathlib.Path(member.filename).parts`를 사용하여 '..' 패턴을 검사했지만,
이 방식은 POSIX 환경(예: Linux 기반 CI 러너)에서 백슬래시('\')를 디렉토리 구분자로 인식하지 않아
우회될 수 있는 문제가 있었습니다.
이를 방지하기 위해 백슬래시를 슬래시('/')로 변환한 뒤 분할하여 '..' 포함 여부를 검사하도록
`scripts/checks/extract_scorecard_artifact.py` 및 `scripts/release/extract_release_artifacts.py`
파일을 수정했습니다.
이 커밋은 Python 스크립트에서 발생하는 Zip Slip(디렉토리 순회) 취약점을 수정합니다.
기존 코드에서는 `pathlib.Path(member.filename).parts`를 사용하여 '..' 패턴을 검사했지만,
이 방식은 POSIX 환경(예: Linux 기반 CI 러너)에서 백슬래시('\')를 디렉토리 구분자로 인식하지 않아
우회될 수 있는 문제가 있었습니다.
이를 방지하기 위해 백슬래시를 슬래시('/')로 변환한 뒤 분할하여 '..' 포함 여부를 검사하도록
`scripts/checks/extract_scorecard_artifact.py` 및 `scripts/release/extract_release_artifacts.py`
파일을 수정했습니다.
1 participant
🚨 Severity: HIGH
💡 Vulnerability: 디렉토리 순회(Path Traversal) 취약점 (Zip Slip)
🎯 Impact: 공격자가 악의적으로 조작된 ZIP 파일을 통해
..\..\etc\passwd와 같은 경로를 전달할 경우, POSIX 기반 CI 러너에서pathlib이 백슬래시를 인식하지 못해 검사를 우회하고 시스템의 임의 위치에 파일을 덮어쓰거나 민감한 정보를 탈취할 수 있는 위험이 있었습니다.🔧 Fix:
pathlib.Path.parts에 의존하던 검사 로직을member.filename.replace("\\", "/").split("/")로 변경하여 모든 플랫폼에서 백슬래시가 포함된 경로 조작 시도를 안정적으로 차단하도록 수정했습니다.✅ Verification:
uv run ruff check및./scripts/harness/quickcheck.sh를 통해 린트 및 테스트 통과를 확인했습니다.PR created automatically by Jules for task 2952439999098632319 started by @seonghobae