Add command to review security issues in code files

[xingxingxia]

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR adds a command to review security issues in code files. We need it because it is helpful for developers and security engineers to identify potential security issues early in the development cycle.

Special notes for your reviewer:

None

Checklist:

• Subject and description added to both, commit and PR.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Added /utils:review-security command to review code files for common security vulnerabilities and issues, supporting file-path or pattern arguments.

• Documentation

  • Added comprehensive documentation for the security review command, including usage examples, severity classifications, and analysis categories.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: xingxingxia
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign stbenjam for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Added documentation for a new /utils:review-security command across multiple manifest and documentation files. Changes include command registry updates in PLUGINS.md and docs/data.json, plugin README entry, and comprehensive command documentation detailing usage, scope, file filtering, security analysis categories, and report generation.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Manifest & Registry Updates PLUGINS.md, docs/data.json	Added new command /utils:review-security [file-paths-or-patterns] to manifest files and command registry with description for reviewing code for common security vulnerabilities and issues.
Plugin Documentation plugins/utils/README.md, plugins/utils/commands/review-security.md	Added command entry in README and new comprehensive documentation file covering usage, scope determination, file collection/filtering, security analysis categories (secrets, injections, cryptography, data exposure, authentication/authorization), severity classification, return values, examples, and integration notes.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~5 minutes

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

Important

Pre-merge checks failed

Please resolve all errors before merging. Addressing warnings is optional.

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
No Assumed Git Remote Names	❓ Inconclusive	Shell script execution failed due to repository access issues, preventing direct examination of modified files for hardcoded git remote names.	Provide direct access to modified files (PLUGINS.md, docs/data.json, plugins/utils/README.md, plugins/utils/commands/review-security.md) to search for hardcoded git remote names like "origin" or "upstream".

✅ Passed checks (6 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately and specifically describes the main change: adding a new security review command to the utils plugin.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
No Real People Names In Style References	✅ Passed	PR introduces /utils:review-security command with documentation across four files using only technical descriptions and standard documentation language without references to real people.
Git Push Safety Rules	✅ Passed	Pull request only adds documentation and configuration entries for a new /utils:review-security command with no git push operations.
No Untrusted Mcp Servers	✅ Passed	Pull request introduces only documentation changes for a new security review command with no code or external dependencies.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting

Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between edabeae and b37c17c.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• PLUGINS.md (1 hunks)
• docs/data.json (1 hunks)
• plugins/utils/README.md (1 hunks)
• plugins/utils/commands/review-security.md (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 Gitleaks (8.30.0)

plugins/utils/commands/review-security.md

[high] 174-174: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.

(generic-api-key)

🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)

plugins/utils/commands/review-security.md

30-30: Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time
Expected: h2; Actual: h3

(MD001, heading-increment)

🔇 Additional comments (5)

plugins/utils/README.md (1)

23-25: Documentation entry added correctly.

The new command entry follows the established pattern and maintains consistency with other commands in the utils plugin.

docs/data.json (1)

445-450: Well-formed command registry entry.

The new command object is properly structured with consistent argument hints and descriptions matching the documentation files.

PLUGINS.md (1)

292-292: Documentation entry properly formatted and positioned.

Consistent with other command entries in the Utils Plugin section. Maintains alignment and formatting standards.

plugins/utils/commands/review-security.md (2)

142-285: Report structure, examples, and integration guidance are well-articulated.

The severity classification schema, report template, usage examples, and tool integration recommendations provide clear implementation guidance. The documentation is thorough and maintainable.

---

59-207: The security analysis guidance in the review-security.md file is comprehensive and well-structured. However, the reported issue about a hardcoded API key at line 174 is not present in the provided code snippet.

The snippet shows the "Example Fix" section contains apiKey := os.Getenv("API_KEY"), which is the correct approach using environment variables—not a hardcoded secret. No Gitleaks trigger is possible because the code already follows security best practices.

Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[xingxingxia]

@coderabbitai I read that you commented "Failed checks (1 inconclusive)" about "No Assumed Git Remote Names" and the "Explanation" and "Resolution" you said, but I still don't understand what problem you wanted to mean. Could you elaborate? Can I ignore it or must I solve it?

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Fetch PR details and all comments to find the "No Assumed Git Remote Names" message
gh pr view 197 --json body,comments --jq '.body, .comments[] | select(.body | contains("No Assumed Git Remote Names") or contains("Failed checks"))'

# Also check for review comments
gh pr view 197 --json reviews --jq '.reviews[] | select(.body | contains("No Assumed Git Remote Names") or contains("Failed checks"))'

# Get the full PR conversation
gh pr view 197 --comments | head -200

Length of output: 9244

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the modified files for any hardcoded git remote names like "origin" or "upstream"
echo "=== Checking PLUGINS.md ==="
rg -i '\b(origin|upstream)\b' PLUGINS.md || echo "No matches found"

echo -e "\n=== Checking docs/data.json ==="
rg -i '\b(origin|upstream)\b' docs/data.json || echo "No matches found"

echo -e "\n=== Checking plugins/utils/README.md ==="
rg -i '\b(origin|upstream)\b' plugins/utils/README.md || echo "No matches found"

echo -e "\n=== Checking plugins/utils/commands/review-security.md ==="
rg -i '\b(origin|upstream)\b' plugins/utils/commands/review-security.md || echo "No matches found"

Length of output: 1203

---

@xingxingxia: Great question! Let me clarify what this check means and whether you need to worry about it.

What the Check Is Looking For

The "No Assumed Git Remote Names" check looks for hardcoded git remote names (like "origin" or "upstream") in shell scripts or code. For example, it would flag things like:

• git push origin main
• git fetch upstream

This is considered a best practice issue because different repositories might use different remote names, so scripts should be more flexible.

Your Situation

You can safely ignore this check for the following reasons:

1. The status is "Inconclusive," not "Failed" - This means the automated check couldn't complete properly (it had repository access issues), so it couldn't definitively determine if there's a problem.

2. Your PR only adds documentation files - You're not adding any shell scripts or executable code that would use git commands.

3. The matches are benign - I searched your modified files and found these occurrences of "origin" and "upstream":

   • "Origin Plugin" - a plugin name in the documentation
   • "openshift/origin" - a repository name
   • "upstream repository" - descriptive text in command descriptions

   None of these are actual hardcoded git remote names in scripts.

Bottom Line

✅ You can ignore this inconclusive check. Your changes don't introduce any problematic hardcoded git remote names. The check simply couldn't run properly due to technical issues on the automated check side, not because of any real problem in your code.

[xingxingxia]

Local test result looks good:

> /utils:review-security pkg/oauth/external/handler.go

> /utils:review-security is running… pkg/oauth/external/handler.go

● I'll perform a comprehensive security review of the specified file. Let me start by reading the file to analyze it for security vulnerabilities.

● Read(pkg/oauth/external/handler.go)
  ⎿  Read 376 lines

● Now let me analyze this file for security vulnerabilities. I'll create a comprehensive security report.

● Bash(mkdir -p .work/security-review)
  ⎿  (No content)

● Write(.work/security-review/report-20251208-143522.md)
  ⎿  Wrote 492 lines to .work/security-review/report-20251208-143522.md
     # Security Review Report
     **Analyzed**: 1 file
     **File**: `pkg/oauth/external/handler.go`
     **Generated**: 2025-12-08 14:35:22
     **Scope**: Specified file
     ## Executive Summary
     - Total findings: **5**
     - Critical: **0**
     … +482 lines (ctrl+o to expand)

● Security Review Complete

  Analyzed: 1 file (pkg/oauth/external/handler.go)

  Findings Summary

  | Severity | Count |
  |----------|-------|
  | Critical | 0     |
  | High     | 2     |
  | Medium   | 3     |
  | Low      | 0     |

  Top Critical Issues

  1. [HIGH] Open Redirect Vulnerability - Success Flow (handler.go:305)

  The AuthenticationSucceeded function redirects to a user-controlled "then" parameter without validation. This allows attackers to redirect authenticated users to malicious sites for phishing or credential
  theft.

  2. [HIGH] Open Redirect Vulnerability - Error Flow (handler.go:359)

  Similar vulnerability in AuthenticationError function where the redirect URL from state is not validated before redirection.

  3. [MEDIUM] Unvalidated State Generation (handler.go:264)

  The redirect destination is captured from req.URL.String() without validation before encoding into the OAuth state parameter.

  Positive Security Practices Found

  The code demonstrates good security practices:
  - CSRF token validation in OAuth callbacks
  - Proper state parameter encoding (base64)
  - URL sanitization for logging (removing credentials)
  - Comprehensive audit logging
  - Appropriate error handling for invalid grants

  Report Location

  Full detailed report saved to:
  .work/security-review/report-20251208-143522.md

  Recommended Next Steps

  1. Immediate: Implement redirect URL validation to prevent open redirects
  2. Short-term: Review and adjust logging verbosity for PII/sensitive data
  3. Long-term: Add security-focused unit tests for redirect validation

[xingxingxia]

@theobarberbany , could you help take a look, and tag lgtm & approve if no other issue?