chore: [StepSecurity] Apply security best practices

[step-security-bot]

Summary

This pull request is created by StepSecurity at the request of @tirumerla. Please merge the Pull Request to incorporate the requested changes. Please tag @tirumerla on your message if you have any questions related to the PR.

Security Fixes

Pinned Dependencies

GitHub Action tags and Docker tags are mutable. This poses a security risk. GitHub's Security Hardening guide recommends pinning actions to full length commit.

• GitHub Security Guide
• The Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) Security Guide

Harden Runner

Harden-Runner is an open-source security agent for the GitHub-hosted runner to prevent software supply chain attacks. It prevents exfiltration of credentials, detects tampering of source code during build, and enables running jobs without sudo access. See how popular open-source projects use Harden-Runner here.

Harden runner usage

You can find link to view insights and policy recommendation in the build log

Please refer to documentation to find more details.

Keeping your actions up to date with Dependabot

With Dependabot version updates, when Dependabot identifies an outdated dependency, it raises a pull request to update the manifest to the latest version of the dependency. This is recommended by GitHub as well as The Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF).

• GitHub Security Guide
• The Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) Security Guide

Detect Vulnerabilities with SAST Workflow

Static Code Analysis (also known as Source Code Analysis) is usually performed as part of a Code Review (also known as clear-box testing) and is carried out at the Implementation phase of a Security Development Lifecycle (SDL). Static Code Analysis commonly refers to the running of Static Code Analysis tools that attempt to highlight possible vulnerabilities within ‘static’ (non-running) source code by using techniques such as Taint Analysis and Data Flow Analysis.

• The Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) Security Guide
• OWASP Static Code Analysis
• Github Guide For Code Scanning

Add Dependency Review Workflow

The Dependency Review Workflow enforces dependency reviews on your pull requests. The action scans for vulnerable versions of dependencies introduced by package version changes in pull requests, and warns you about the associated security vulnerabilities. This gives you better visibility of what's changing in a pull request, and helps prevent vulnerabilities being added to your repository.

• Github Guide about Dependency Review
• Github Guide for Configuring Dependency Review Action

Maintain Code Quality with Pre-Commit

Pre-commit is a framework for managing and maintaining multi-language pre-commit hooks. Hooks can be any scripts, code, or binaries that run at any stage of the git workflow. Pre-commit hooks are useful for enforcing code quality, code formatting, and detecting security vulnerabilities.

• Official Pre-commit documentation
• Getting Started guide

Feedback

For bug reports, feature requests, and general feedback; please email support@stepsecurity.io. To create such PRs, please visit https://app.stepsecurity.io/securerepo.

Signed-off-by: StepSecurity Bot bot@stepsecurity.io

[github-advanced-security]

This pull request sets up GitHub code scanning for this repository. Once the scans have completed and the checks have passed, the analysis results for this pull request branch will appear on this overview. Once you merge this pull request, the 'Security' tab will show more code scanning analysis results (for example, for the default branch). Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results. For more information about GitHub code scanning, check out the documentation.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.2%. Comparing base (2d66763) to head (0c20c81).
Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main    #202   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   95.2%   95.2%           
=====================================
  Files         59      59           
  Lines      15191   15191           
=====================================
  Hits       14465   14465           
  Misses       726     726           

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	59.4% <ø> (ø)
properties	20.9% <ø> (ø)
unittests	82.2% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.