Skip to content

πŸ›‘οΈ Sentinel: [HIGH] Fix command injection in analytics sources check - #30

Draft
piyyy314 wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
sentinel/fix-command-injection-analytics-sources-8194896469899166931
Draft

πŸ›‘οΈ Sentinel: [HIGH] Fix command injection in analytics sources check#30
piyyy314 wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
sentinel/fix-command-injection-analytics-sources-8194896469899166931

Conversation

@piyyy314

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

πŸ›‘οΈ Sentinel: Fix Command Injection Risk in Analytics Sources Check

🚨 Severity: HIGH
πŸ’‘ Vulnerability: Command injection in isInstalled and runCommand functions (src/lib/analytics/sources.ts) due to shell execution via child_process.exec with unescaped string interpolation.
🎯 Impact: Untrusted string input passed to isInstalled could execute arbitrary shell commands in the host process environment.
πŸ”§ Fix: Replaced exec string invocation with execFile and argument arrays (which, where, or adb shell which). Rejected promise in runCommand when execFile fails so isInstalled returns false on missing executables.
βœ… Verification: Added unit tests in test/jest/unit/analytics-sources.spec.ts testing isInstalled for existing and non-existing commands. All tests and linting pass.


PR created automatically by Jules for task 8194896469899166931 started by @piyyy314

Refactor `runCommand` and `isInstalled` in `src/lib/analytics/sources.ts` to use `execFile` with argument arrays instead of `exec` with shell string interpolation. Additionally, update `runCommand` to reject its Promise on execution failure so missing binary checks behave as expected.

Co-authored-by: google-labs-jules[bot] <161369871+google-labs-jules[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown

πŸ‘‹ Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a πŸ‘€ 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.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Important

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

βš™οΈ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 88e0f5ef-8097-4dc6-91e3-62f69e515df0

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

  • πŸ” Trigger review

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❀️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@piyyy314

piyyy314 commented Aug 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

βœ… Snyk checks have passed. No issues have been found so far.

Status Scan Engine Critical High Medium Low Total (0)
βœ… Open Source Security 0 0 0 0 0 issues

πŸ’» Catch issues earlier using the plugins for VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, Visual Studio, and Eclipse.

Refactor `runCommand` and `isInstalled` in `src/lib/analytics/sources.ts` to use `execFile` with argument arrays instead of `exec` with shell string interpolation. Additionally, update `runCommand` to reject its Promise on execution failure so missing binary checks behave as expected.

Co-authored-by: google-labs-jules[bot] <161369871+google-labs-jules[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
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.

1 participant