LNK-3039: Security Fixes (Dev) #531
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces modifications across several controller classes in the .NET application, primarily focused on enhancing error handling and logging practices. Changes include the removal of specific logging statements in favor of simpler, structured logging approaches that capture exceptions more effectively. Additionally, the response mechanisms for errors have been standardized to return a Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 16
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (11)
DotNet/Account/Presentation/Endpoints/User/Handlers/CreateNewUser.cs (3)
Line range hint
48-54: Security concern: Exception handling exposes internal detailsThe catch block re-throws exceptions which could expose sensitive implementation details to clients. Consider mapping exceptions to appropriate HTTP responses.
Apply this change:
catch (Exception ex) { Activity.Current?.SetStatus(ActivityStatusCode.Error); Activity.Current?.RecordException(ex); logger.LogUserCreationException(ex.Message); - throw; + return Results.Problem( + statusCode: StatusCodes.Status500InternalServerError, + title: "An error occurred while processing your request." + ); }
Line range hint
17-24: Add input validation for emailThe handler lacks email format validation before checking for existing users. This could lead to unnecessary database queries or storage of invalid data.
Add validation before the existing user check:
if (model is null) { return Results.BadRequest("No user was provided in the request."); } + +if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(model.Email) || !IsValidEmail(model.Email)) +{ + return Results.BadRequest("Invalid email format."); +} //check if user with the same email existsAdd this helper method:
private static bool IsValidEmail(string email) { try { var addr = new System.Net.Mail.MailAddress(email); return addr.Address == email; } catch { return false; } }
Rate limiting should be implemented to protect the API endpoint
The codebase lacks rate limiting implementation which could make it vulnerable to abuse. Consider:
- Install the
Microsoft.AspNetCore.RateLimitingNuGet package- Add rate limiting middleware in Program.cs:
builder.Services.AddRateLimiter(options => { options.GlobalLimiter = PartitionedRateLimiter.Create<HttpContext, string>(context => RateLimitPartition.GetFixedWindowLimiter( partitionKey: context.User.Identity?.Name ?? context.Request.Headers.Host.ToString(), factory: partition => new FixedWindowRateLimiterOptions { AutoReplenishment = true, PermitLimit = 10, Window = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10) })); });
- Apply the middleware:
app.UseRateLimiter();🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-54: Consider implementing rate limitingThe endpoint lacks rate limiting which could make it vulnerable to brute force attacks or DoS attempts. Consider adding rate limiting middleware.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if rate limiting is implemented elsewhere rg -l "RateLimiting" rg -l "IpRateLimiting"Length of output: 43
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check for rate limiting related configurations and middleware rg -i "rate.?limit" -A 5Length of output: 454
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check Program.cs, Startup.cs for middleware configuration fd -e cs "(Program|Startup)" --exec cat {}Length of output: 173382
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for any NuGet packages related to rate limiting in csproj files fd -e csproj . --exec cat {}Length of output: 51177
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for rate limiting middleware/configuration in ASP.NET Core rg -i "rate.?limit" -A 5 -g "*.cs"Length of output: 36
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for rate limiting NuGet packages in csproj files rg -i "rate.?limit" -g "*.csproj"Length of output: 35
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for rate limiting configuration in appsettings files rg -i "rate.?limit" -g "appsettings*.json"Length of output: 44
DotNet/Census/Controllers/CensusConfigController.cs (1)
Line range hint
1-177: Consider additional security measuresWhile the authorization policy is in place, consider implementing these additional security measures:
- Add input validation/sanitization for
facilityIdparameter- Implement rate limiting for the API endpoints
- Add anti-CSRF tokens for state-changing operations (POST, PUT, DELETE)
- Consider adding request logging middleware to track API usage patterns
Would you like assistance in implementing any of these security measures?
DotNet/Census/Controllers/CensusController.cs (5)
Line range hint
9-13: Add input validation for facilityId path parameter.While the controller is properly secured with admin authorization, the
facilityIdpath parameter should be validated to prevent path traversal attacks. Consider adding a route constraint or validation attribute.Example implementation:
-[Route("api/census/{facilityId}")] +[Route("api/census/{facilityId:regex(^[a-zA-Z0-9-_]+$)}")]
Line range hint
60-99: Add input validation for date parameters and secure FHIR resource construction.
- The date parameters lack validation, which could lead to potential DoS through large date ranges.
- The FHIR resource construction should ensure no sensitive patient data is accidentally exposed.
Add date validation:
if (startDate != default && endDate != default && startDate > endDate) { return BadRequest("Start date must be before end date"); } if (endDate != default && endDate > DateTime.UtcNow) { return BadRequest("End date cannot be in the future"); } // Optional: Limit date range to prevent DoS if ((endDate - startDate).TotalDays > 365) { return BadRequest("Date range cannot exceed 365 days"); }
Line range hint
122-130: Strengthen input validation for facilityId.While the method checks for null/empty, it should also validate the format and length of the facilityId to prevent injection attacks.
-if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(facilityId)) +if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(facilityId) || facilityId.Length > 50 || !Regex.IsMatch(facilityId, "^[a-zA-Z0-9-_]+$")) { - return BadRequest("FacilityId parameter is null or empty."); + return BadRequest("Invalid facility ID format."); }
Line range hint
149-156: Add input validation for facilityId.This method is missing the facilityId validation that exists in GetCurrentCensus. Add consistent validation across all methods.
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(facilityId) || facilityId.Length > 50 || !Regex.IsMatch(facilityId, "^[a-zA-Z0-9-_]+$")) { return BadRequest("Invalid facility ID format."); }
Potential security risk: Exception details exposed in API responses
The codebase consistently exposes exception messages in API responses across multiple controllers, which could leak sensitive information about the system's internals to potential attackers. This includes:
- Direct exposure of exception messages in Problem() responses
- Raw exception messages in BadRequest() responses
- Some controllers even expose inner exception details (e.g., ConnectionValidationController)
Key locations that need attention:
DotNet/Census/Controllers/CensusController.csDotNet/DataAcquisition/Controllers/ConnectionValidationController.cs(exposes inner exceptions)DotNet/Tenant/Controllers/FacilityController.csDotNet/Normalization/Controllers/NormalizationController.csDotNet/DataAcquisition/Controllers/QueryConfigController.csRecommendation: Replace exception messages with user-friendly error messages that don't expose internal details. Only log the full exception details for debugging purposes.
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-160: Verify consistent error handling across the codebase.Let's check if other controllers might be exposing exception details in their error responses.
Let me check the actual implementation of these error responses to better understand the pattern.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Problem() calls that might expose exception messages rg -l 'Problem.*ex\.Message' # Search for other potential exception exposure patterns rg -l 'new ObjectResult.*ex' rg -l 'BadRequest.*ex\.Message'Length of output: 839
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the actual implementation of Problem() calls rg -A 2 'Problem.*ex\.Message' # Check BadRequest implementations rg -A 2 'BadRequest.*ex\.Message'Length of output: 22710
DotNet/Normalization/Controllers/NormalizationController.cs (1)
Line range hint
1-199: Consider implementing centralized error handlingTo ensure consistent and secure error handling across all controllers, consider implementing a global error handling middleware or base controller.
This would help:
- Standardize error responses
- Prevent accidental exposure of sensitive information
- Centralize security logging
- Implement proper error correlation IDs
Would you like me to provide an example implementation of a secure error handling middleware?
DotNet/Tenant/Controllers/FacilityController.cs (1)
Line range hint
1-285: Security: Consider adding rate limiting and audit loggingWhile the controller has basic authorization, consider these additional security measures:
- Implement rate limiting to prevent DoS attacks
- Add audit logging for sensitive operations (create/update/delete)
- Consider implementing request validation using a request validation pipeline
Example implementation using middleware:
public class AuditLoggingMiddleware { private readonly RequestDelegate _next; private readonly IAuditLogger _auditLogger; public async Task InvokeAsync(HttpContext context) { if (IsSensitiveOperation(context.Request.Method)) { await _auditLogger.LogAsync(new AuditEvent { User = context.User.Identity.Name, Action = context.Request.Method, Resource = context.Request.Path, Timestamp = DateTime.UtcNow }); } await _next(context); } } // Add rate limiting using AspNetCoreRateLimit services.Configure<IpRateLimitOptions>(options => { options.GeneralRules = new List<RateLimitRule> { new RateLimitRule { Endpoint = "*", Period = "1m", Limit = 30 } }; });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
DotNet/Account/Presentation/Endpoints/User/Handlers/CreateNewUser.cs(1 hunks)DotNet/Census/Controllers/CensusConfigController.cs(4 hunks)DotNet/Census/Controllers/CensusController.cs(4 hunks)DotNet/Normalization/Controllers/NormalizationController.cs(4 hunks)DotNet/Tenant/Controllers/FacilityController.cs(4 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (5)
DotNet/Account/Presentation/Endpoints/User/Handlers/CreateNewUser.cs (1)
Pattern **: PRs that have "TECH-DEBT" in the title should only contain changes related to typos, unused code, linter/IDE suggestions, swagger specification updates, and logging improvements. These TECH-DEBT PRs should not affect core functionality.
DotNet/Census/Controllers/CensusConfigController.cs (1)
Pattern **: PRs that have "TECH-DEBT" in the title should only contain changes related to typos, unused code, linter/IDE suggestions, swagger specification updates, and logging improvements. These TECH-DEBT PRs should not affect core functionality.
DotNet/Census/Controllers/CensusController.cs (1)
Pattern **: PRs that have "TECH-DEBT" in the title should only contain changes related to typos, unused code, linter/IDE suggestions, swagger specification updates, and logging improvements. These TECH-DEBT PRs should not affect core functionality.
DotNet/Normalization/Controllers/NormalizationController.cs (1)
Pattern **: PRs that have "TECH-DEBT" in the title should only contain changes related to typos, unused code, linter/IDE suggestions, swagger specification updates, and logging improvements. These TECH-DEBT PRs should not affect core functionality.
DotNet/Tenant/Controllers/FacilityController.cs (1)
Pattern **: PRs that have "TECH-DEBT" in the title should only contain changes related to typos, unused code, linter/IDE suggestions, swagger specification updates, and logging improvements. These TECH-DEBT PRs should not affect core functionality.
🔇 Additional comments (2)
DotNet/Account/Presentation/Endpoints/User/Handlers/CreateNewUser.cs (1)
Line range hint 33-34: Avoid logging sensitive user information
The LogUserCreated method potentially logs sensitive user identifiers. Consider logging only non-sensitive metadata or masking sensitive parts of the identifiers.
DotNet/Census/Controllers/CensusConfigController.cs (1)
90-91:
Apply consistent error message sanitization
Similar to the Create method, avoid exposing internal error details in the response.
Apply the same pattern of using a sanitized error message in the Problem response.
DotNet/Account/Presentation/Endpoints/User/Handlers/CreateNewUser.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (7)
DotNet/Normalization/Application/Managers/NormalizationConfigManager.cs (1)
Based on the search results from all scripts executed, I can now provide a final response:
Consider implementing additional security measures for OperationSequence validation and rate limiting
While the code has good input validation for null checks and facility existence, and audit logging is well implemented through the audit service, there are two security aspects that should be addressed:
Add input validation for OperationSequence contents to prevent injection attacks:
- Implement a validator class to validate operation sequence structure and content
- Add sanitization of operation parameters
- Consider using a schema validation approach
Add rate limiting to prevent DoS attacks:
- Implement rate limiting middleware
- Configure per-client request limits
- Add retry-after headers for rate-limited responses
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
38-116: Consider additional security improvements for SaveConfigEntity method.While the method has good input validation, consider implementing these security enhancements:
- Add validation for OperationSequence contents to prevent injection attacks
- Implement rate limiting to prevent DoS attacks
- Add audit logging for configuration changes
Let's verify if audit logging exists elsewhere:
Based on the search results, I can see that audit logging is already well implemented in the codebase. Let me search for validation patterns to check for input validation and rate limiting:
Let me check for any validation classes or interfaces that might be used for input validation:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for audit logging patterns in the codebase echo "Checking for audit logging implementations..." rg -i "audit.*log|ActivityLog|ILogger.*audit" # Search for rate limiting implementations echo "Checking for rate limiting implementations..." rg -i "RateLimit|ThrottleAttribute|IpRateLimit"Length of output: 163560
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for validation patterns in NormalizationConfigManager and related files echo "Checking for validation patterns..." rg -i "validate|sanitize|clean" DotNet/Normalization/Application/ # Search for rate limiting middleware or configurations echo "Checking for rate limiting configurations..." rg -i "middleware|configure|startup" DotNet/Normalization/ -A 5Length of output: 5443
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for validation classes and interfaces echo "Checking for validation implementations..." rg -i "class.*validator|interface.*validator|ivalidator" DotNet/Normalization/ # Search for operation sequence validation patterns echo "Checking for operation sequence validation..." rg -i "operationsequence.*valid|validate.*operation" DotNet/Normalization/Length of output: 353
DotNet/Census/Domain/Managers/CensusConfigManager.cs (3)
Line range hint
89-95: Remove sensitive information from error messages.The current error messages include stack traces, inner exceptions, and source information which could expose system internals to attackers if logs are compromised. This is a security vulnerability that needs to be addressed.
Apply this pattern to all similar catch blocks:
catch (Exception ex) { - var message = - $"Error saving config for facility {existingEntity.FacilityID} {ex.Message}\n{ex.InnerException}\n{ex.Source}\n{ex.StackTrace}"; - _logger.LogError(message, ex); + _logger.LogError(ex, "Failed to save configuration for facility {FacilityId}", existingEntity.FacilityID); throw; }Also applies to: 124-130
Line range hint
143-147: Remove unused sensitive message construction.The TODO comment indicates unused code that constructs a message containing sensitive information. This should be removed to prevent potential security risks if implemented incorrectly in the future.
Apply this change:
catch (Exception ex) { - //TODO: Daniel - doesn't do anything with the message - var message = - $"Error saving config for facility {existingEntity.FacilityID} {ex.Message}\n{ex.InnerException}\n{ex.Source}\n{ex.StackTrace}"; + _logger.LogError(ex, "Failed to save new configuration for facility {FacilityId}", existingEntity.FacilityID); throw; }
Line range hint
66-67: Add security controls for configuration changes.Consider implementing these security improvements:
- Validate
ScheduledTriggerinput to prevent potential injection attacks- Add audit logging for configuration changes to maintain security trail
Example implementation:
// Add input validation private void ValidateScheduledTrigger(string trigger) { if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(trigger)) throw new ArgumentException("Trigger cannot be empty"); if (!CronExpression.IsValidExpression(trigger)) throw new ArgumentException("Invalid trigger format"); } // Add audit logging private async Task LogAudit(string facilityId, string action, string details) { await _auditLogger.LogAsync(new AuditEvent { Action = action, Resource = "CensusConfig", ResourceId = facilityId, Details = details }); }DotNet/Census/Controllers/CensusConfigController.cs (2)
Line range hint
83-89: Add audit logging for configuration retrievalConfiguration access should be audited for security monitoring.
Add audit logging:
try { + var user = User.Identity?.Name ?? "unknown"; + _logger.LogInformation( + "Configuration retrieval requested for facility {FacilityId} by user {User}", + facilityId, + user + ); var response = await _censusConfigManager.GetCensusConfigByFacilityId(facilityId); if (response == null) + { + _logger.LogWarning( + "No configuration found for facility {FacilityId} requested by user {User}", + facilityId, + user + ); return NotFound(); + }
Line range hint
176-179: Add audit logging for delete operation and fix response codeThis critical operation needs audit logging, and the response code should match the documentation.
Apply these improvements:
try { + var user = User.Identity?.Name ?? "unknown"; + _logger.LogInformation( + "Configuration deletion requested for facility {FacilityId} by user {User}", + facilityId, + user + ); await _censusConfigManager.DeleteCensusConfigByFacilityId(facilityId); + _logger.LogInformation( + "Configuration successfully deleted for facility {FacilityId} by user {User}", + facilityId, + user + ); - return Accepted(); + return NoContent(); }DotNet/Tenant/Services/FacilityConfigurationService.cs (1)
Line range hint
1-486: Consider implementing comprehensive input sanitizationWhile this PR introduces input sanitization for logging, a more comprehensive security approach is needed:
- Consider creating a security middleware or decorator that automatically sanitizes all input parameters
- Implement consistent sanitization across all logging, audit events, and error messages
- Add security tests to verify protection against log injection attacks
Would you like assistance in designing a more comprehensive security solution that could be applied consistently across the codebase?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
DotNet/Account/Presentation/Endpoints/User/Handlers/CreateNewUser.cs(3 hunks)DotNet/Census/Controllers/CensusConfigController.cs(5 hunks)DotNet/Census/Controllers/CensusController.cs(4 hunks)DotNet/Census/Domain/Managers/CensusConfigManager.cs(1 hunks)DotNet/Normalization/Application/Managers/NormalizationConfigManager.cs(1 hunks)DotNet/Normalization/Controllers/NormalizationController.cs(4 hunks)DotNet/Tenant/Controllers/FacilityController.cs(4 hunks)DotNet/Tenant/Services/FacilityConfigurationService.cs(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
- DotNet/Account/Presentation/Endpoints/User/Handlers/CreateNewUser.cs
- DotNet/Census/Controllers/CensusController.cs
- DotNet/Normalization/Controllers/NormalizationController.cs
- DotNet/Tenant/Controllers/FacilityController.cs
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (4)
DotNet/Census/Controllers/CensusConfigController.cs (1)
Pattern **: PRs that have "TECH-DEBT" in the title should only contain changes related to typos, unused code, linter/IDE suggestions, swagger specification updates, and logging improvements. These TECH-DEBT PRs should not affect core functionality.
DotNet/Census/Domain/Managers/CensusConfigManager.cs (1)
Pattern **: PRs that have "TECH-DEBT" in the title should only contain changes related to typos, unused code, linter/IDE suggestions, swagger specification updates, and logging improvements. These TECH-DEBT PRs should not affect core functionality.
DotNet/Normalization/Application/Managers/NormalizationConfigManager.cs (1)
Pattern **: PRs that have "TECH-DEBT" in the title should only contain changes related to typos, unused code, linter/IDE suggestions, swagger specification updates, and logging improvements. These TECH-DEBT PRs should not affect core functionality.
DotNet/Tenant/Services/FacilityConfigurationService.cs (1)
Pattern **: PRs that have "TECH-DEBT" in the title should only contain changes related to typos, unused code, linter/IDE suggestions, swagger specification updates, and logging improvements. These TECH-DEBT PRs should not affect core functionality.
🔇 Additional comments (2)
DotNet/Normalization/Application/Managers/NormalizationConfigManager.cs (1)
71-72: LGTM! Good security improvement in error logging.
The change to remove facility ID from error logs is a positive security enhancement that prevents potential exposure of sensitive information in log files.
DotNet/Tenant/Services/FacilityConfigurationService.cs (1)
20-20: LGTM: Security dependency added correctly
The addition of the security services import is appropriate for implementing input sanitization.
🛠 Description of Changes
https://lantana.atlassian.net/browse/LNK-3031
https://lantana.atlassian.net/browse/LNK-3039
https://lantana.atlassian.net/browse/LNK-3040
https://lantana.atlassian.net/browse/LNK-3032
🧪 Testing Performed
Please describe the testing that was performed on the changes included in this PR.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
New Features
RemoveFacilitymethod.Documentation