Skip to content

Rework VulnerabilityResolutionReason for CRA / DORA requirements #10886

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Rework VulnerabilityResolutionReason for CRA / DORA requirements #10886

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
72fa5db
feat(model): Add `FIXED_VULNERABILITY` as a resolution reason
sschuberth Sep 23, 2025
c5bea43
feat(model): Add `RISK_ACCEPTED_VULNERABILITY` as a resolution reason
sschuberth Sep 23, 2025
f9f9338
chore(model): Deprecate `INEFFECTIVE_VULNERABILITY`
sschuberth Sep 23, 2025
59bc685
chore(model): Deprecated `INVALID_MATCH_VULNERABILITY`
sschuberth Sep 23, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions model/src/main/kotlin/config/VulnerabilityResolutionReason.kt
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -31,6 +31,11 @@ enum class VulnerabilityResolutionReason {
*/
CANT_FIX_VULNERABILITY,

/**
* The required fix (e.g. patch, update) has been successfully applied and verified, eliminating the vulnerability.
*/
FIXED_VULNERABILITY,
Copy link
Member

@fviernau fviernau Sep 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The semantics described in the commit message IIUC differs from the one in the KDoc.
I believe KDOC should be aligned.

Copy link
Member Author

@sschuberth sschuberth Sep 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please explain where you feel is a mismatch, because I don't see any after re-reading.

For using this enum value the question boils down to "How can a vulnerability actually be fixed if it is reported by an advisor for that package?". And one of the answers is the example mentioned in the commit message: As vulnerabilities are looked up by package coordinates / purls, not by package content, the advisor cannot know anything about patches being applied while keeping coordinates the same.

Copy link
Member

@fviernau fviernau Sep 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Basically, the advisor reported a false positive, because the identifier of the package is ambiguous. So, could we instead use the one currently named "false positive" ? Also, invalid match seems to fit.

Please explain where you feel is a mismatch

I found it deviates, because the KDoc does not speak about any package context.
For the use case where one has a third party depenceny with a vulnerability included in a product, I guess there is also the possibility that the "FIX" goes into product code, e.g. ensuring that the vulnerable code path is not used.

Looking at all values existing in this enum right now, it seems there is more overlap inbetween several values. I wonder if the enum elements could be cleaned up a bit, such as merging WORKAROUND_FOR_VULNERABILITY, MITIGATED_VULNERABILIY, INEFFECTIVE_VULNERABILITY, NOT_EXPLOITABLE_VULNERABILITY into just NOT_EXPLOITABLE_VULNERABILITY.
What do you think?


/**
* The code in which the vulnerability was found is neither invoked in the project's code nor indirectly
* via another open source component.
Expand Down