b8fc2e9e33
scan_sbom.py reported 50 advisory matches against shipped components, 16 of them at or above HIGH. This clears all of them: the scan now reports 0 shipped findings and the gate passes. pyjwt 2.12.1 -> 2.13.0 idna 3.13 -> 3.19 axios 1.13.2 -> 1.20.0 (29 advisories) postcss 8.5.6 -> 8.5.26 dompurify 3.4.11 -> 3.4.14 nanoid 3.3.11 -> 3.3.18 follow-redirects 1.15.11 -> 1.16.0 form-data 4.0.5 -> 4.0.6 Every one is an in-major bump inside a range the manifests already allowed, so this is a lockfile refresh rather than a migration. The Python side was compiled with --upgrade-package for each name so nothing else moved; the diff is two version lines and their hashes. nanoid is worth recording: it is transitive under postcss at ^3.3.11, and its advisories are fixed on both the 3.x and 5.x branches. 3.3.18 is the fix that is actually reachable. The declared floors for axios and dompurify were raised to the versions in the lockfile. They were ^1.6.0 and ^3.4.11, which still nominally admitted the vulnerable range - npm resolves to the highest match so an install was never going to pick one, but the manifest should state the minimum safe version rather than rely on that. axios 1.20 adds optional proxy-agent support, which pulls https-proxy-agent and agent-base into the tree. Both are Node-only and neither reaches the browser bundle; the build was checked for them. The main chunk grew 256kB to 271kB (85.7kB to 90.5kB gzipped) from the rest of the axios delta. The PyJWT entry in the allowlist was removed rather than kept. It stopped matching the moment the upgrade landed, and an allowlist that accumulates entries for advisories that no longer apply is one nobody rereads. The reasoning is preserved as the worked example in docs/DEPENDENCY-SECURITY.md. Verified: full suite 2161 passed, frontend 273 passed, build clean, npm audit --omit=dev reports 0 vulnerabilities.
24 lines
1.1 KiB
JSON
24 lines
1.1 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"_comment": [
|
|
"Advisories reviewed and accepted, with the reason and the date.",
|
|
"This is a RECORD, not a mute button: an entry says somebody looked at",
|
|
"the advisory and worked out why it does not apply here. Anyone can",
|
|
"re-read the reason and disagree.",
|
|
"",
|
|
"An entry needs an id, a reason that names the precondition that is",
|
|
"absent, who accepted it, and when. 'reviewuntil' is when the reasoning",
|
|
"should be checked again - a reason stops being true when the code that",
|
|
"made it true changes, and 'invalidatedby' should say what that change",
|
|
"would be.",
|
|
"",
|
|
"Currently EMPTY, which is the state to aim for. The one entry this file",
|
|
"has held so far - a PyJWT algorithm-confusion advisory that needed a",
|
|
"configuration this application does not use - was removed by upgrading",
|
|
"PyJWT rather than by keeping the exception.",
|
|
"",
|
|
"Do NOT add an entry to make a build pass. Upgrading the dependency is",
|
|
"almost always cheaper than defending a decision to skip it."
|
|
],
|
|
"accepted": []
|
|
}
|