Code Security Report 3 High Severity SQL Injection Findings
Hey everyone! Let's dive into the code security report for the SAST-UP-PROD-saas-mend and SAST-Test-Repo-f6ac8c81-b30f-40f1-b31d-ce0a0dcdf028 projects. Our latest scan revealed some critical insights, and we need to address these findings to ensure our code is rock-solid. This report highlights three high-severity issues and a total of five findings, so let’s get straight to the details.
Scan Metadata
First, let's look at the scan metadata. This gives us an overview of when the scan was performed and what it covered. Understanding this information helps us contextualize the findings and prioritize our actions.
Latest Scan: 2025-08-04 09:15pm Total Findings: 5 | New Findings: 5 | Resolved Findings: 0 Tested Project Files: 19 Detected Programming Languages: 1 (Python*)
This scan, performed on August 4, 2025, at 9:15 PM, uncovered five findings, all of which are new. We haven’t resolved any issues from previous scans, so this is our starting point. The scan covered 19 project files, and the primary programming language detected was Python. Knowing this helps us focus our efforts on the relevant code sections.
- [ ] Check this box to manually trigger a scan
High Severity Findings: SQL Injection Vulnerabilities
Okay, guys, let's jump into the heart of the report: the high-severity findings. We've got three SQL Injection vulnerabilities, which are serious business. SQL Injection is a type of security vulnerability that can allow attackers to interfere with the queries that an application makes to its database. This can lead to unauthorized access, data breaches, or even complete database compromise. Therefore, addressing these issues is our top priority.
SQL Injection in libuser.py:12
The first SQL Injection vulnerability was detected in libuser.py at line 12. Let's break down what this means and why it’s so critical. This vulnerability is classified under CWE-89, which specifically addresses improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL command. In simpler terms, the code isn't properly sanitizing user inputs before using them in SQL queries. This lack of sanitization allows an attacker to inject malicious SQL code into the query, potentially manipulating the database.
Here’s the breakdown:
- Severity: High
- Vulnerability Type: SQL Injection
- CWE: CWE-89
- File:
libuser.py:12 - Data Flows: 1
- Detected: 2025-08-04 09:15pm
To see the vulnerable code, you can check out the snippet on GitHub:
Data Flow:
To better understand and address this vulnerability, here are some training resources from Secure Code Warrior:
- Training: Secure Code Warrior SQL Injection Training
- Videos: Secure Code Warrior SQL Injection Video
- Further Reading:
These resources provide in-depth knowledge and best practices for preventing SQL Injection attacks, especially in Python.
SQL Injection in libuser.py:25
Moving on, another high-severity SQL Injection was found in the same libuser.py file, this time at line 25. This indicates a recurring pattern of potentially unsafe SQL query construction within this module. It reinforces the need for a comprehensive review of how SQL queries are handled throughout the file.
The details are as follows:
- Severity: High
- Vulnerability Type: SQL Injection
- CWE: CWE-89
- File:
libuser.py:25 - Data Flows: 1
- Detected: 2025-08-04 09:15pm
Check out the vulnerable code here:
Data Flow:
Again, let's leverage the Secure Code Warrior resources:
- Training: Secure Code Warrior SQL Injection Training
- Videos: Secure Code Warrior SQL Injection Video
- Further Reading:
These resources will help us understand the nuances of this specific instance and how to prevent similar issues in the future.
SQL Injection in libuser.py:53
Last but not least in the high-severity category, we have a third SQL Injection vulnerability in libuser.py at line 53. This further underscores the critical need to revamp the SQL handling mechanisms within this file. It’s likely that there's a systemic issue that needs to be addressed, not just isolated incidents.
Here’s the breakdown:
- Severity: High
- Vulnerability Type: SQL Injection
- CWE: CWE-89
- File:
libuser.py:53 - Data Flows: 1
- Detected: 2025-08-04 09:15pm
Take a look at the vulnerable code:
Data Flow:
And, of course, let's revisit those Secure Code Warrior resources:
- Training: Secure Code Warrior SQL Injection Training
- Videos: Secure Code Warrior SQL Injection Video
- Further Reading:
In summary, the presence of three SQL Injection vulnerabilities in libuser.py is a major red flag. We need to prioritize addressing these issues by sanitizing inputs, using parameterized queries, and ensuring that our code follows secure coding practices. The Secure Code Warrior resources are excellent tools for gaining the necessary knowledge and skills.
Medium Severity Findings: Hardcoded Credentials
Alright, moving on to the medium-severity findings. We’ve got two instances of hardcoded passwords or credentials. While not as immediately critical as SQL Injection, hardcoded credentials can still pose a significant risk. If these credentials fall into the wrong hands, they can be used to compromise the system. Therefore, it's important to address these issues to minimize potential exposure.
Hardcoded Password/Credentials in vulpy.py:16
The first instance is in vulpy.py at line 16. Hardcoding credentials directly into the code is a big no-no. It makes it incredibly easy for anyone with access to the codebase to obtain sensitive information. This vulnerability falls under CWE-798, which highlights the use of hardcoded credentials.
Here’s the rundown:
- Severity: Medium
- Vulnerability Type: Hardcoded Password/Credentials
- CWE: CWE-798
- File:
vulpy.py:16 - Data Flows: 1
- Detected: 2025-08-04 09:15pm
Take a look at the vulnerable code here:
For training and educational resources, check out Secure Code Warrior:
- Training: Secure Code Warrior Hardcoded Password/Credentials Training
- Videos: Secure Code Warrior Hardcoded Password/Credentials Video
The best way to fix this is to move the credentials out of the code and into a secure configuration file or environment variable. Never commit sensitive information directly into the codebase.
Hardcoded Password/Credentials in vulpy-ssl.py:13
The second instance of hardcoded credentials is in vulpy-ssl.py at line 13. This reinforces the need for a code-wide review to ensure that no other credentials are being stored insecurely. Consistency in security practices is key to maintaining a robust system.
The details are as follows:
- Severity: Medium
- Vulnerability Type: Hardcoded Password/Credentials
- CWE: CWE-798
- File:
vulpy-ssl.py:13 - Data Flows: 1
- Detected: 2025-08-04 09:15pm
Here’s the link to the vulnerable code:
And let’s not forget the training resources from Secure Code Warrior:
- Training: Secure Code Warrior Hardcoded Password/Credentials Training
- Videos: Secure Code Warrior Hardcoded Password/Credentials Video
In summary, these hardcoded credentials need to be removed and stored securely. This can involve using environment variables, configuration files with restricted access, or dedicated secrets management solutions.
Next Steps and Suppression Options
So, what’s next, guys? We've identified some critical vulnerabilities, and it's time to take action. The immediate priority is to address the SQL Injection vulnerabilities in libuser.py. Following that, we need to tackle the hardcoded credentials in vulpy.py and vulpy-ssl.py.
For each finding, we have the option to suppress it if we believe it's a false alarm or an acceptable risk. However, we should only use this option after careful consideration and a thorough review of the code.
:black_flag: Suppress Finding
- [ ] ... as False Alarm
- [ ] ... as Acceptable Risk
This section allows you to suppress findings by marking them as either a False Alarm or an Acceptable Risk. Before suppressing a finding, make sure you fully understand the potential implications.
Remember, a False Alarm means the tool incorrectly identified a vulnerability, while an Acceptable Risk means you acknowledge the vulnerability but have decided it doesn't pose a significant threat in your specific context. Use these options judiciously.
Conclusion
Overall, this code security report highlights some important areas for improvement. The three high-severity SQL Injection vulnerabilities demand immediate attention. The medium-severity hardcoded credentials also need to be addressed promptly. By leveraging the provided training resources and following secure coding practices, we can significantly improve the security posture of our projects.
Let's get to work and make our code more secure! Make sure to review the findings, utilize the Secure Code Warrior training materials, and discuss the best course of action for each vulnerability. Our collective effort in addressing these findings will result in a more secure and reliable application.
