Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Making sure that service and ingress are in the same namespace #525

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 16, 2023

Conversation

slashben
Copy link
Contributor

@slashben slashben commented Oct 16, 2023

PR Type:

Bug fix


PR Description:

This PR addresses a bug in the 'exposure-to-internet' rule where the service and ingress were not verified to belong to the same namespace. This led to false positives in scans. The fix ensures that the service and ingress are in the same namespace, thus reducing the chance of false positives.


PR Main Files Walkthrough:

files:

rules/exposure-to-internet/raw.rego: Added a condition to verify that the service and ingress belong to the same namespace. This is done by comparing the 'namespace' metadata of both the service and the ingress.


User Description:

Overview

Rule "exposure-to-internet" did not verify that the service and ingress are in the same namespace when matching them one to another.

This caused false positives in scans.

…s are in the same namespace

Signed-off-by: Ben Hirschberg <59160382+slashben@users.noreply.github.com>
@codiumai-pr-agent-free
Copy link
Contributor

PR Analysis

  • 🎯 Main theme: Ensuring service and ingress belong to the same namespace
  • 📝 PR summary: This PR addresses a bug in the 'exposure-to-internet' rule where the service and ingress were not verified to belong to the same namespace, leading to false positives in scans. The fix ensures that the service and ingress are in the same namespace, thus reducing the chance of false positives.
  • 📌 Type of PR: Bug fix
  • 🧪 Relevant tests added: No
  • ⏱️ Estimated effort to review [1-5]: 2, because the PR is relatively small and the changes are straightforward, but it requires knowledge about Kubernetes and Rego language.
  • 🔒 Security concerns: No security concerns found

PR Feedback

  • 💡 General suggestions: The PR is well-structured and the changes are clear. However, it would be beneficial to add tests to verify the new condition added to the rule.

  • 🤖 Code feedback:

    • relevant file: rules/exposure-to-internet/raw.rego
      suggestion: Consider adding error handling or a fallback in case the 'namespace' metadata is not available for either the service or the ingress. [important]
      relevant line: svc.metadata.namespace == ingress.metadata.namespace

How to use

To invoke the PR-Agent, add a comment using one of the following commands:
/review [-i]: Request a review of your Pull Request. For an incremental review, which only considers changes since the last review, include the '-i' option.
/describe: Modify the PR title and description based on the contents of the PR.
/improve [--extended]: Suggest improvements to the code in the PR. Extended mode employs several calls, and provides a more thorough feedback.
/ask <QUESTION>: Pose a question about the PR.
/update_changelog: Update the changelog based on the PR's contents.

To edit any configuration parameter from configuration.toml, add --config_path=new_value
For example: /review --pr_reviewer.extra_instructions="focus on the file: ..."
To list the possible configuration parameters, use the /config command.

Signed-off-by: Ben Hirschberg <59160382+slashben@users.noreply.github.com>
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Summary:

  • License scan: failure
  • Credentials scan: success
  • Vulnerabilities scan: failure
  • Unit test: success
  • Go linting: success

Signed-off-by: YiscahLevySilas1 <yiscahls@armosec.io>
Signed-off-by: YiscahLevySilas1 <yiscahls@armosec.io>
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Summary:

  • License scan: failure
  • Credentials scan: success
  • Vulnerabilities scan: failure
  • Unit test: success
  • Go linting: success

@YiscahLevySilas1 YiscahLevySilas1 merged commit 22de0e1 into master Oct 16, 2023
28 checks passed
@slashben slashben deleted the slashben-patch-1 branch January 23, 2024 06:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants