Remove and add gibberish entries in JSON #7
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| flask==1.0.2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Check warning on line 1 in python/requirements.txt
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. 🚫 Codacy found a high Security issue: Insecure dependency pypi/flask@1.0.2 (CVE-2023-30861: flask: Possible disclosure of permanent session cookie due to missing Vary: Cookie header) (update to 2.2.5) The issue identified by the Trivy linter pertains to a security vulnerability in Flask version 1.0.2, specifically CVE-2023-30861. This vulnerability could potentially allow for the disclosure of a permanent session cookie due to the absence of a To mitigate this vulnerability, it is recommended to upgrade Flask to a more secure version, as suggested by the linter. The recommended version is 2.2.5, which includes the necessary security fixes. Here is the code suggestion to fix the issue:
Suggested change
This comment was generated by an experimental AI tool. There was a problem hiding this comment. 🔴 HIGH RISK Codacy identified an insecure dependency: Flask version This might be a simple fix:
Suggested change
There was a problem hiding this comment. 🔴 HIGH RISK Flask 1.0.2 is outdated and contains a high-severity vulnerability (CVE-2023-30861) that could disclose permanent session cookies. Upgrade to version 3.1.3 or later.
Suggested change
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| django==1.11.29 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Check warning on line 2 in python/requirements.txt
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. 🚫 Codacy found a high Security issue: Insecure dependency pypi/django@1.11.29 (CVE-2025-64458: Django: Denial-of-service vulnerability in Django on Windows) (update to 4.2.26) The issue identified by the Trivy linter pertains to a denial-of-service vulnerability in Django version 1.11.29, which can be exploited on Windows systems. This vulnerability is documented under CVE-2025-64458 and poses a risk to applications using this version of Django. To mitigate this security risk, it is recommended to upgrade to a more recent, secure version of Django, specifically version 4.2.26 or later. To address this vulnerability, you can update the Django version in your requirements file with the following code suggestion:
Suggested change
This comment was generated by an experimental AI tool. There was a problem hiding this comment. 🚫 Codacy found a high Security issue: Insecure dependency pypi/django@1.11.29 (CVE-2025-57833: django: Django SQL injection in FilteredRelation column aliases) (update to 4.2.24) The issue identified by Trivy relates to a security vulnerability in Django version 1.11.29, specifically a SQL injection vulnerability associated with FilteredRelation column aliases (CVE-2025-57833). This vulnerability could potentially allow an attacker to manipulate SQL queries and gain unauthorized access to the database or sensitive data. To mitigate this security risk, it is recommended to upgrade Django to a secure version, as suggested by Trivy. The recommended version is 4.2.24, which addresses the vulnerability. Here’s the code suggestion to update the Django version:
Suggested change
This comment was generated by an experimental AI tool. There was a problem hiding this comment. The issue identified by Trivy is a security vulnerability in the specified version of Django (1.11.29). The vulnerability, listed under CVE-2024-45231, relates to a potential user email enumeration issue that can occur during the password reset process. This could allow an attacker to determine whether a specific email address is registered in the system based on the response status from the server, thereby compromising user privacy. To mitigate this vulnerability, it is recommended to upgrade Django to a more secure version, specifically to 4.2.16 or later, which contains the necessary patches to address this issue. Here’s the code suggestion to fix the issue by updating the Django version:
Suggested change
This comment was generated by an experimental AI tool. There was a problem hiding this comment.
The issue identified by Trivy relates to a security vulnerability in Django version 1.11.29, specifically CVE-2021-33203. This vulnerability allows for potential directory traversal through the To resolve this issue, you should update the Django version to at least 2.2.24, which addresses the vulnerability. Here’s the code suggestion to make that change:
Suggested change
This comment was generated by an experimental AI tool. There was a problem hiding this comment. ❌ Codacy found a critical Security issue: Insecure dependency pypi/django@1.11.29 (CVE-2025-64459: django: Django SQL injection) (update to 4.2.26) The issue identified by the Trivy linter pertains to a security vulnerability in the Django version specified in your dependencies. Specifically, the version To mitigate this security risk, it is recommended to upgrade to a more secure version of Django. The suggested version provided by the linter is Here’s the single line change you should make to your dependency list:
Suggested change
This comment was generated by an experimental AI tool. There was a problem hiding this comment. The issue identified by the Trivy linter is a security vulnerability in Django version 1.11.29, specifically a Path Injection Vulnerability (CVE-2025-48432). This vulnerability could allow an attacker to manipulate file paths, potentially leading to unauthorized access to sensitive files or directories within the application. Since Django 1.11 is an older version and no longer actively maintained, it is crucial to upgrade to a more recent and secure version. To resolve this issue, you should update the Django dependency to a safe and supported version, such as 4.2.22. This will help mitigate the security risk associated with the identified vulnerability. Here is the suggested code change:
Suggested change
This comment was generated by an experimental AI tool. There was a problem hiding this comment. 🚫 Codacy found a high Security issue: Insecure dependency pypi/django@1.11.29 (CVE-2022-36359: An issue was discovered in the HTTP FileResponse class in Django 3.2 b ...) (update to 3.2.15) The issue reported by the Trivy linter indicates that the version of Django specified in your requirements ( To fix this issue, you should update the version of Django in your requirements file. Here’s the single line change you can make:
Suggested change
This comment was generated by an experimental AI tool. There was a problem hiding this comment. 🔴 HIGH RISK Codacy identified an insecure dependency: Django version This might be a simple fix:
Suggested change
There was a problem hiding this comment. 🔴 HIGH RISK Codacy identified an insecure dependency: Django version This might be a simple fix:
Suggested change
There was a problem hiding this comment. 🔴 HIGH RISK Codacy identified an insecure dependency: Django version This might be a simple fix:
Suggested change
There was a problem hiding this comment. 🔴 HIGH RISK Codacy identified an insecure dependency: Django version This might be a simple fix:
Suggested change
There was a problem hiding this comment. 🔴 HIGH RISK Django 1.11.29 reached end-of-life in April 2020 and contains multiple critical security vulnerabilities, including SQL injection (CVE-2025-64459). Use a supported version such as 4.2.26.
Suggested change
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| requests==2.19.1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Check warning on line 3 in python/requirements.txt
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. The issue identified by the Trivy linter is related to a security vulnerability in the To mitigate this security issue, you should update the Here is the code suggestion to fix the issue:
Suggested change
This comment was generated by an experimental AI tool. There was a problem hiding this comment. The issue identified by the Trivy linter is a security vulnerability in the To fix the issue, you should update the version of the
Suggested change
This comment was generated by an experimental AI tool. There was a problem hiding this comment. The issue identified by the Trivy linter is a security vulnerability in the To resolve this issue, you should update the version of the Here's the code suggestion to fix the issue:
Suggested change
This comment was generated by an experimental AI tool. There was a problem hiding this comment. 🔴 HIGH RISK Codacy identified an insecure dependency: Requests version This might be a simple fix:
Suggested change
There was a problem hiding this comment. 🟡 MEDIUM RISK Requests 2.19.1 contains security flaws including credential leaks and SSL verification bypasses (CVE-2024-35195). Upgrade to at least 2.32.4.
Suggested change
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,5 +1,3 @@ | ||
| } | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. 🔴 HIGH RISK The JSON structure in this file is invalid and will fail standard parsing. It starts with a closing brace '}' and uses YAML-style dash-prefixed list entries. Please ensure the file follows valid JSON syntax. Try running the following prompt in your IDE agent:
|
||
| - gibberish | ||
| - more gibberish | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🟡 MEDIUM RISK
Suggestion: Changing the push trigger from
branches: [ '*' ]tobranches: [ 'master' ]will prevent the workflow from running on pushes to other branches. If the intent is for pushes to feature branches to also trigger the workflow, this change might be too restrictive. Please clarify the intended behavior.