🛡️ Sentinel: [CRITICAL] 파일 확장자 검증 시 널 바이트(Null Byte) 인젝션 취약점 수정

[seonghobae]

🚨 Severity: CRITICAL

💡 Vulnerability: 파일 이름에 널 바이트(\u0000)를 주입하여 백엔드의 파일 확장자 유효성 검사 우회가 가능한 취약점이 발견되었습니다. (예: malicious.hwp\u0000.pdf 같은 파일 이름으로 요청)
🎯 Impact: 차단된 확장자(예: 실행 파일이나 악성 문서)가 허용된 확장자로 속여서 시스템에 업로드되고 처리될 수 있습니다.
🔧 Fix: DefaultDocumentValidationService의 validateOrThrow 메소드에서 file.getOriginalFilename()에 널 바이트가 포함되어 있으면 IllegalArgumentException을 던지도록 수정했습니다.
✅ Verification: mvn test를 통해 추가된 rejectsFilenameWithNullByte 테스트 및 기존 테스트들을 모두 통과하는지 확인했습니다. mvn -DskipTests checkstyle:check 린트도 통과했습니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 2709642422010247359 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.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR addresses a critical security issue where filenames containing a null byte (\u0000) could bypass file-extension validation, potentially allowing uploads of blocked formats disguised as permitted extensions.

Changes:

• Reject uploads whose MultipartFile.getOriginalFilename() contains a null byte by throwing IllegalArgumentException.
• Add a regression test (rejectsFilenameWithNullByte) to ensure null-byte filenames are rejected.
• Record the vulnerability and prevention note in the Sentinel security log.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
src/main/java/com/clearfolio/viewer/service/DefaultDocumentValidationService.java	Adds explicit null-byte validation before extension parsing.
src/test/java/com/clearfolio/viewer/service/DefaultDocumentValidationServiceTest.java	Adds a regression test covering null-byte injection in filenames.
.jules/sentinel.md	Documents the null-byte injection vulnerability and prevention guidance.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: b45a938111a573a8583aee9a489e56cdf0fdea04
• Workflow run: 28947313846
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head b45a938111a573a8583aee9a489e56cdf0fdea04.

• Head SHA: b45a938111a573a8583aee9a489e56cdf0fdea04

• Workflow run: 28947313846

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Evidence

• Head SHA: b45a938111a573a8583aee9a489e56cdf0fdea04
• Required test evidence: supported repository test suites must pass.
• Required docstring evidence: repository-owned docstring gates must pass when configured; otherwise docstring coverage is advisory.

JavaScript/TypeScript dependencies (npm install)

up to date, audited 1 package in 2s

found 0 vulnerabilities

• Result: PASS

JavaScript/TypeScript docstring coverage

• Result: PASS
• Reason: package.json exists, but no check:python-docstrings, docstring:coverage, or docs:coverage script is defined; docstring coverage is advisory.

JavaScript/TypeScript test coverage

> clearfolio-viewer@0.1.0 test
> echo "No JS tests configured" || true --coverage

No JS tests configured

• Result: PASS

JavaScript/TypeScript coverage threshold

• Result: FAIL
• Reason: JavaScript/TypeScript coverage ran, but no coverage summary files were produced.

Coverage Decision

• Result: FAIL
• Test evidence: not proven passing
• Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
• Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (7 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (7 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

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 .jules/sentinel.md, src/main/java/com/clearfolio/viewer/service/DefaultDocumentValidationService.java, src/test/java/com/clearfolio/viewer/service/DefaultDocumentValidationServiceTest.java.
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 test coverage as not applicable because no supported changed source files or package manifests were found.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports docstring coverage as not applicable because no supported changed source files or package manifests were found.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .jules/sentinel.md 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: Critical security vulnerability fixed with proper validation and test coverage
• Head SHA: 965ae171098a7d06b8c00013e428d05f757f7bd9
• Workflow run: 28634394320
• Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

Superseded by #120 (sentinel-fix-null-byte-injection-10962904880897055436), a newer Sentinel PR that applies the identical null-byte injection guard.

Both PRs add the same fix to DefaultDocumentValidationService.validateOrThrow — an explicit fileName.indexOf('�') >= 0 rejection before extension parsing — plus the matching rejectsFilenameWithNullByte regression test. #120 is the cleaner, newer version: it touches only the validation service, its test, and .jules/sentinel.md, whereas this PR (#76) additionally introduces unrelated package.json, pyproject.toml, and .gitignore scope creep.

Closing #76 in favor of #120. The base-level dependency CVEs surfaced by trivy-fs/osv-scan on this branch are pre-existing shared-base issues addressed centrally by #119 (fix/dep-vulns-shared-base), not introduced by this PR.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[github-actions]

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head b45a938111a573a8583aee9a489e56cdf0fdea04.

• Head SHA: b45a938111a573a8583aee9a489e56cdf0fdea04

• Workflow run: 28947313846

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Evidence

• Head SHA: b45a938111a573a8583aee9a489e56cdf0fdea04
• Required test evidence: supported repository test suites must pass.
• Required docstring evidence: repository-owned docstring gates must pass when configured; otherwise docstring coverage is advisory.

JavaScript/TypeScript dependencies (npm install)

up to date, audited 1 package in 2s

found 0 vulnerabilities

• Result: PASS

JavaScript/TypeScript docstring coverage

• Result: PASS
• Reason: package.json exists, but no check:python-docstrings, docstring:coverage, or docs:coverage script is defined; docstring coverage is advisory.

JavaScript/TypeScript test coverage

> clearfolio-viewer@0.1.0 test
> echo "No JS tests configured" || true --coverage

No JS tests configured

• Result: PASS

JavaScript/TypeScript coverage threshold

• Result: FAIL
• Reason: JavaScript/TypeScript coverage ran, but no coverage summary files were produced.

Coverage Decision

• Result: FAIL
• Test evidence: not proven passing
• Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
• Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (7 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (7 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading