improve remediation - return fix path in every case

[YiscahLevySilas1]

User description

Overview

---

Type

enhancement

---

Description

• Simplified the logic for checking privilege escalation in containers by removing the return of paths from is_allow_privilege_escalation_container.
• Introduced a new function get_fix_path to generate fix paths for adjusting container security contexts.
• Updated expected test outputs for CronJob, Pod, and Workloads to align with the new fix path generation approach.

---

Changes walkthrough

	Relevant files
Enhancement	raw.rego Simplify Privilege Escalation Check and Introduce Fix Path Generation rules/rule-allow-privilege-escalation/raw.rego Simplified the is_allow_privilege_escalation_container function to no longer return paths. Introduced get_fix_path function to generate fix paths for security context adjustments. +17/-44
Tests	expected.json Update Expected Test Output for CronJob                                    rules/rule-allow-privilege-escalation/test/cronjob/expected.json Updated expected test output to reflect changes in fix path generation. +50/-46  expected.json Update Expected Test Output for Pod                                            rules/rule-allow-privilege-escalation/test/pod/expected.json Updated expected test output for Pod to include new fix path structure. +30/-19  expected.json Update Expected Test Output for Workloads                                rules/rule-allow-privilege-escalation/test/workloads/expected.json Adjusted expected test output for workloads to match new fix path logic. +59/-46

---

✨ PR-Agent usage:
Comment /help on the PR to get a list of all available PR-Agent tools and their descriptions

[codiumai-pr-agent-free]

PR Description updated to latest commit (9abea86)

[codiumai-pr-agent-free]

PR Review

⏱️ Estimated effort to review [1-5]	2, because the changes are mostly structural and involve refactoring existing logic without adding significant new functionality. The changes are straightforward and localized to specific functions, making it easier to review.
🧪 Relevant tests	Yes
🔍 Possible issues	Possible Bug: The refactored is_allow_privilege_escalation_container function no longer returns any paths (failed or fixed), which were previously used to generate alert messages. This change could potentially affect how alerts are generated and displayed, missing out on providing specific paths that need attention.
	Consistency Issue: The removal of get_failed_path and get_fixed_path functions and the change in how fixPath is generated could lead to inconsistencies in how data is presented to the users, especially if other parts of the system still rely on the old structure.
🔒 Security concerns	No

---

✨ Review tool usage guide:

---

Overview:
The review tool scans the PR code changes, and generates a PR review which includes several types of feedbacks, such as possible PR issues, security threats and relevant test in the PR. More feedbacks can be added by configuring the tool.

The tool can be triggered automatically every time a new PR is opened, or can be invoked manually by commenting on any PR.

• When commenting, to edit configurations related to the review tool (pr_reviewer section), use the following template:

/review --pr_reviewer.some_config1=... --pr_reviewer.some_config2=...

• With a configuration file, use the following template:

[pr_reviewer]
some_config1=...
some_config2=...

See the review usage page for a comprehensive guide on using this tool.

[codiumai-pr-agent-free]

PR Code Suggestions

Category	Suggestions
Enhancement	Simplify the logic in the is_allow_privilege_escalation_container function. The conditions in the is_allow_privilege_escalation_container function seem to be overly complex and potentially redundant. Consider simplifying the logic by combining conditions that lead to the same outcome, and ensure that the logic accurately reflects the intended policy for handling privilege escalation in containers. rules/rule-allow-privilege-escalation/raw.rego [69-73] is_allow_privilege_escalation_container(container) { - not container.securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation == false - not container.securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation == true + container.securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation psps := [psp | psp= input[_]; psp.kind == "PodSecurityPolicy"] count(psps) == 0 }
	Make the get_fix_path function more flexible by parameterizing remediation values. The get_fix_path function creates fix paths with hardcoded "false" values for security context settings. Consider parameterizing these values or providing a mechanism to specify different remediation actions based on the policy or context. rules/rule-allow-privilege-escalation/raw.rego [100-102] -get_fix_path(i, start_of_path) = fixPath { - fixPath = [{"path": sprintf("%vcontainers[%v].securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation", [start_of_path, i]), "value":"false"}, - {"path": sprintf("%vcontainers[%v].securityContext.privileged", [start_of_path, i]), "value":"false"}] +get_fix_path(i, start_of_path, escalationValue, privilegedValue) = fixPath { + fixPath = [{"path": sprintf("%vcontainers[%v].securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation", [start_of_path, i]), "value": escalationValue}, + {"path": sprintf("%vcontainers[%v].securityContext.privileged", [start_of_path, i]), "value": privilegedValue}] }
	Streamline the logic for checking allowPrivilegeEscalation in the container security context. The logic for checking allowPrivilegeEscalation within is_allow_privilege_escalation_container seems to be contradictory or redundant. Specifically, checking for both not false and not true conditions could be streamlined to directly assess the desired policy enforcement. rules/rule-allow-privilege-escalation/raw.rego [69-71] is_allow_privilege_escalation_container(container) { - not container.securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation == false - not container.securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation == true + container.securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation == true }
Maintainability	Refactor repeated is_allow_privilege_escalation_container definitions into a single function. The repeated definitions of is_allow_privilege_escalation_container with slight variations for handling PodSecurityPolicies (PSPs) could be refactored into a single, more concise function that handles all cases. This would improve maintainability and readability. rules/rule-allow-privilege-escalation/raw.rego [69-83] is_allow_privilege_escalation_container(container) { - not container.securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation == false - not container.securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation == true + container.securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation psps := [psp | psp= input[_]; psp.kind == "PodSecurityPolicy"] - count(psps) == 0 -} -is_allow_privilege_escalation_container(container) { - not container.securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation == false - not container.securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation == true - psps := [psp | psp= input[_]; psp.kind == "PodSecurityPolicy"] - count(psps) > 0 - psp := psps[_] - not psp.spec.allowPrivilegeEscalation == false + count(psps) == 0 || (count(psps) > 0 && psp := psps[_]; not psp.spec.allowPrivilegeEscalation == false) }
Best practice	Add validation checks in get_fix_path to ensure the integrity of generated paths. Consider adding error handling or validation checks within get_fix_path to ensure that the indices and paths being generated are valid and do not lead to runtime errors or unintended behavior. rules/rule-allow-privilege-escalation/raw.rego [100-102] get_fix_path(i, start_of_path) = fixPath { + # Validate i and start_of_path before proceeding + assert(i >= 0, "Container index must be non-negative.") + assert(start_of_path != "", "Start of path cannot be empty.") fixPath = [{"path": sprintf("%vcontainers[%v].securityContext.allowPrivilegeEscalation", [start_of_path, i]), "value":"false"}, {"path": sprintf("%vcontainers[%v].securityContext.privileged", [start_of_path, i]), "value":"false"}] }

---

✨ Improve tool usage guide:

---

Overview:
The improve tool scans the PR code changes, and automatically generates suggestions for improving the PR code. The tool can be triggered automatically every time a new PR is opened, or can be invoked manually by commenting on a PR.

• When commenting, to edit configurations related to the improve tool (pr_code_suggestions section), use the following template:

/improve --pr_code_suggestions.some_config1=... --pr_code_suggestions.some_config2=...

• With a configuration file, use the following template:

[pr_code_suggestions]
some_config1=...
some_config2=...

See the improve usage page for a comprehensive guide on using this tool.

[github-actions]

Summary:

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

[github-actions]

Summary:

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