Fix code scanning alert - Use of a broken or weak cryptographic hashing algorithm on sensitive data

[MarBeanInc1111]

Tracking issue for:

• [ ] https://github.com/MarBeanInc1111/refactored-engine/security/code-scanning/6

[codeautopilot[bot]]

Potential solution

The plan to solve the bug is to identify where a weak cryptographic hashing algorithm is being used and replace it with a stronger, more secure algorithm. The analysis of the individual files suggests that the bcrypt library used in User.js is secure and does not need to be replaced. However, the username_to_uuid function in pilot/utils/arguments.py uses the SHA-1 algorithm, which is considered weak. The solution is to replace SHA-1 with a more secure algorithm like SHA-256 or SHA-3.

What is causing this bug?

The bug is caused by the use of the SHA-1 hashing algorithm in the username_to_uuid function within pilot/utils/arguments.py. SHA-1 is known to be vulnerable to collision attacks, making it unsuitable for secure cryptographic operations.

Code

To resolve the issue, the username_to_uuid function should be updated as follows:

import hashlib

def username_to_uuid(username):
    """
    Creates a consistent UUID from a username using SHA-256
    :param username:
    :return:
    """
    sha256 = hashlib.sha256(username.encode()).hexdigest()
    uuid_str = "{}-{}-{}-{}-{}".format(sha256[:8], sha256[8:12], sha256[12:16], sha256[16:20], sha256[20:32])
    return str(uuid.UUID(uuid_str))

How to replicate the bug

To replicate the bug, one would need to call the username_to_uuid function with a username and observe that it uses the SHA-1 algorithm for hashing. This can be done by reviewing the code or by generating UUIDs and comparing them against known SHA-1 collision pairs to see if the function produces the same UUID for different usernames.

Task

The task is to replace the weak SHA-1 hashing algorithm with a stronger one in the username_to_uuid function located in pilot/utils/arguments.py. The User.js and user.py files do not require any changes as they are either using a strong algorithm (bcrypt) or do not contain hashing logic, respectively.

Click here to create a Pull Request with the proposed solution

Files used for this task:

Changes on pilot/templates/tpl/node_express_mongoose/models/User.js

# Analysis Report ## File: pilot/templates/tpl/node_express_mongoose/models/User.js ### Current Implementation The file `User.js` is a Mongoose model for a user entity in a Node.js application using the Express framework. It includes a schema definition for the user, which has a `username` and a `password`. The password is hashed using the `bcrypt` library before saving the user to the database. This is done in a pre-save hook on the user schema. ### Code Review Upon reviewing the code, the usage of the `bcrypt` library for hashing passwords is observed. `bcrypt` is a strong cryptographic hashing algorithm that is suitable for securing passwords. It is designed to be slow and computationally expensive to resist brute-force attacks. The `bcrypt.hash` function is used with a cost factor (also known as salt rounds) of 10. This cost factor determines how much time is needed to calculate a single bcrypt hash. The higher the cost factor, the longer it takes to generate the hash, and the more secure it is against brute-force attacks. ### Conclusion The file `User.js` is using `bcrypt` for hashing passwords, which is a strong and recommended cryptographic hashing algorithm for this purpose. The cost factor of 10 is a reasonable default that balances security and performance. ### Recommendations - **No action required**: The usage of `bcrypt` in this file is appropriate and aligns with best practices for password hashing. There is no need to replace the hashing algorithm in this file. - **Optional**: Consider making the cost factor configurable through an environment variable or configuration file, allowing for easy adjustments according to the security requirements and performance considerations of the deployment environment. ### Final Verdict The file `User.js` does not contribute to the issue described in the ticket. The cryptographic hashing algorithm used (`bcrypt`) is not weak or broken, and therefore, there is no need for changes related to the ticket's concern in this file.

Changes on pilot/database/models/user.py

The provided source code in `pilot/database/models/user.py` defines a `User` model with `email` and `password` fields using the Peewee ORM. However, this file does not contain any hashing logic for passwords. It merely defines the fields for the database model. Since the task is to replace a weak hashing algorithm with a strong one, we would expect to see some hashing logic in this file, such as a method that sets the user's password by hashing it before saving it to the database. However, such logic is not present in the provided code snippet. To address the issue raised in the ticket, the following steps would need to be taken, but they are not applicable to this specific file as it stands: 1. Introduce a method in the `User` class to handle password hashing using a strong cryptographic algorithm like bcrypt, Argon2, or PBKDF2. 2. Replace any existing weak hashing logic (not present in this snippet) with the new strong hashing method. 3. Ensure that any password comparison logic elsewhere in the codebase uses the correct method to compare hashed passwords rather than plain text. Since the file does not contain any hashing or comparison logic, it is not directly relevant to the bug described in the ticket. The actual hashing logic is likely to be found in another part of the codebase, possibly in a controller or a utility function that interacts with the `User` model. In conclusion, the `pilot/database/models/user.py` file does not contain any hashing logic and therefore does not directly contribute to the issue of using a broken or weak cryptographic hashing algorithm on sensitive data. The fix for the issue will need to be implemented in the part of the codebase where the password hashing and verification actually occur.

Changes on pilot/utils/arguments.py

After reviewing the provided source code in `pilot/utils/arguments.py`, the relevant section for the issue at hand is the `username_to_uuid` function. This function is using the SHA-1 hashing algorithm to create a UUID from a username. SHA-1 is considered a weak cryptographic hashing algorithm due to vulnerabilities that allow for collision attacks, where two different inputs can produce the same hash output. Here is the relevant code snippet: ```python def username_to_uuid(username): """ Creates a consistent UUID from a username :param username: :return: """ sha1 = hashlib.sha1(username.encode()).hexdigest() uuid_str = "{}-{}-{}-{}-{}".format(sha1[:8], sha1[8:12], sha1[12:16], sha1[16:20], sha1[20:32]) return str(uuid.UUID(uuid_str)) ``` To address the issue, the `username_to_uuid` function should be updated to use a stronger cryptographic hashing algorithm. Here are the steps to resolve the issue: 1. Replace the SHA-1 hashing algorithm with a more secure one, such as SHA-256 or SHA-3. 2. Ensure that the new hashing algorithm does not break the existing functionality of generating a consistent UUID from a username. 3. Test the updated function to verify that it works as expected and does not introduce any new issues. Here is an example of how the function could be updated to use SHA-256: ```python import hashlib def username_to_uuid(username): """ Creates a consistent UUID from a username using SHA-256 :param username: :return: """ sha256 = hashlib.sha256(username.encode()).hexdigest() uuid_str = "{}-{}-{}-{}-{}".format(sha256[:8], sha256[8:12], sha256[12:16], sha256[16:20], sha256[20:32]) return str(uuid.UUID(uuid_str)) ``` This change would replace the weak SHA-1 algorithm with the stronger SHA-256 algorithm, addressing the security concern raised in the issue. It is important to note that this change may affect any systems or processes that rely on the specific format or properties of the UUIDs generated by the original function. Therefore, a thorough review and testing of dependent systems should be conducted to ensure compatibility.

_Disclaimer: This comment was entirely generated using AI. Be aware that the information provided may be incorrect._ Current plan usage: 25.25% **Have feedback or need help?** [Discord](https://discord.gg/r72ykfvyx7) [Documentation](https://docs.codeautopilot.com/) [support@codeautopilot.com](mailto:support@codeautopilot.com)