Skip to content

🛡️ Sentinel: [CRITICAL] Fix command injection in sandbox status/logs - #56

Open
mak1e wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
sentinel-fix-command-injection-1593272613270094677
Open

🛡️ Sentinel: [CRITICAL] Fix command injection in sandbox status/logs#56
mak1e wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
sentinel-fix-command-injection-1593272613270094677

Conversation

@mak1e

@mak1e mak1e commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🛡️ Sentinel: [CRITICAL] Fix command injection in sandbox status/logs

  • Severity: CRITICAL
  • Vulnerability: Command injection via exec in src/commands/logs.ts and src/commands/status.ts. Dynamic string sandboxName was concatenated directly into the shell command string.
  • Impact: High. Allows potential Remote Code Execution or arbitrary shell command injection if the user supplies a manipulated sandboxName.
  • Fix: Replaced exec with execFile, changing the execution context such that arguments are passed safely within an array rather than evaluated within a shell context.
  • Verification: Updated status.test.ts to correctly mock execFile and verified behavior. Ran pnpm lint and pnpm test successfully. No other components were affected. Cleaned up pnpm-lock.yaml side-effect.

PR created automatically by Jules for task 1593272613270094677 started by @mak1e

* Severity: CRITICAL
* Vulnerability: Command injection via `exec` in `src/commands/logs.ts` and `src/commands/status.ts`. Dynamic string `sandboxName` was passed directly to shell command.
* Impact: High; potential RCE or arbitrary command execution if `sandboxName` is manipulated.
* Fix: Replaced `exec` with `execFile`, resolving the command separately from its dynamic arguments (passed safely in an array).
* Verification: Updated unit tests to mock `execFile` and verified the fix passes all lint and tests.

Co-authored-by: mak1e <127885+mak1e@users.noreply.github.com>
@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👋 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 AI review requested due to automatic review settings July 6, 2026 02:40
@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants