Gato-x Bug Report Script Injection Vulnerability Detection Failure
This bug report discusses a failure in Gato-x's script injection vulnerability detection capabilities. Specifically, the tool failed to identify a script injection vulnerability in one of the jobs within a GitHub workflow. This article details the bug, the steps to reproduce it, the expected behavior, and supporting evidence, including screenshots and JSON output. Understanding the intricacies of this vulnerability detection failure is crucial for improving the accuracy and reliability of security auditing tools like Gato-x.
Bug Description: Gato-x Script Injection Vulnerability Detection Failure
The core issue reported is that Gato-x is not consistently detecting script injection vulnerabilities within GitHub workflows. In a specific workflow examined, two jobs (on-success and on-failure) contained script injection vulnerabilities. However, Gato-x only reported the vulnerability in the on-success job, missing the one in on-failure. This inconsistency raises concerns about the tool's comprehensive vulnerability detection capabilities, highlighting a need for improvements in its analysis algorithms and reporting mechanisms. Incomplete detection can lead to a false sense of security, potentially leaving repositories vulnerable to malicious attacks. Therefore, understanding the root cause of this failure is vital for ensuring the tool's effectiveness in securing software development workflows.
Steps to Reproduce the Bug
To replicate this bug, follow these steps:
-
Execute the following command:
gato-x enum --repository step-security/changed-files -
Examine the output from Gato-x. The expected behavior is that both the
on-successandon-failurejobs within the workflow should be flagged for script injection vulnerabilities. -
Navigate to the workflow file on GitHub to verify the vulnerabilities manually. The workflow file in question is located here: https://github.com/step-security/changed-files/blob/main/.github/workflows/workflow-run-example.yml.
-
Observe that only the
on-successjob is reported in the output, while theon-failurejob is overlooked.
By following these steps, you can reproduce the bug and observe the discrepancy in Gato-x's vulnerability detection. This process helps confirm the issue and provides a clear basis for further investigation and resolution.
Expected Behavior
The expected behavior of Gato-x is to accurately identify and report all script injection vulnerabilities within a given workflow. In the specific case of the workflow at https://github.com/step-security/changed-files/blob/main/.github/workflows/workflow-run-example.yml, both the on-success and on-failure jobs contain script injection vulnerabilities. Therefore, Gato-x should flag both jobs in its output. The tool's primary purpose is to provide a comprehensive security audit, and missing vulnerabilities undermines its effectiveness and reliability. Accurate detection is crucial for developers and security teams to address potential risks proactively. Failing to report all vulnerabilities can create a false sense of security, leading to unpatched weaknesses that could be exploited by attackers. Hence, the expected behavior of Gato-x includes complete and accurate reporting of all identified script injection vulnerabilities.
Evidence: Screenshots and JSON Output
Screenshot
The following screenshot illustrates the Gato-x output, highlighting that only the on-success job is flagged for script injection vulnerability, while the on-failure job is missed.
This visual evidence clearly demonstrates the discrepancy in Gato-x's detection capabilities.
JSON Output
The JSON output from Gato-x provides a structured view of the scan results. Here's the relevant excerpt:
{
"username": "swarit-stepsecurity",
"scopes": [
"admin:enterprise",
"admin:gpg_key",
"admin:org",
"admin:org_hook",
"admin:public_key",
"admin:repo_hook",
"admin:ssh_signing_key",
"audit_log",
"codespace",
"copilot",
"delete:packages",
"delete_repo",
"gist",
"notifications",
"project",
"repo",
"user",
"workflow",
"write:discussion",
"write:network_configurations",
"write:packages"
],
"enumeration": {
"timestamp": "Mon Jul 7 11:32:16 2025",
"organizations": [],
"repositories": [
{
"name": "step-security/changed-files",
"enum_time": "Mon Jul 7 11:32:27 2025",
"permissions": {
"pull": true,
"push": false,
"maintain": false,
"admin": false
},
"can_fork": true,
"stars": 72,
"runner_workflows": [],
"accessible_runners": [],
"repo_runners": [],
"repo_secrets": [],
"org_secrets": [],
"risks": [
{
"repository_name": "step-security/changed-files",
"issue_type": "InjectionResult",
"triggers": [
"workflow_run"
],
"initial_workflow": "workflow-run-example.yml",
"confidence": "Unknown",
"attack_complexity": "Previous Contributor",
"explanation": "Exploit requires a previous contributor to the repository, and the repository must use the default pull-request approval setting.",
"path": [
{
"node": "WorkflowNode('step-security/changed-files:main:.github/workflows/workflow-run-example.yml')"
},
{
"node": "JobNode('step-security/changed-files:main:.github/workflows/workflow-run-example.yml:on-success')",
"if": "${{ github.event.workflow_run.conclusion == 'success' }}",
"if_eval": false
},
{
"node": "StepNode('step-security/changed-files:main:.github/workflows/workflow-run-example.yml:on-success:Harden the runner (Audit all outbound calls)_0')"
},
{
"node": "StepNode('step-security/changed-files:main:.github/workflows/workflow-run-example.yml:on-success:Checkout code_1')"
},
{
"node": "StepNode('step-security/changed-files:main:.github/workflows/workflow-run-example.yml:on-success:Get changed files_2')"
},
{
"node": "StepNode('step-security/changed-files:main:.github/workflows/workflow-run-example.yml:on-success:Echo list of changed files on success_3')",
"contexts": [
"steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files"
]
}
],
"injectable_context": [
"steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files"
]
}
]
}
]
}
}
This JSON output confirms that only the on-success job is listed under the risks array, further supporting the bug report's claim that Gato-x missed the vulnerability in the on-failure job. The absence of the on-failure job in the risks array highlights the incomplete vulnerability detection.
Environment Details
-
OS: MacOS 15.5 (24F74)
-
Python version: Python 3.13.3
-
Gato-x version:
$ pipx list | grep gato package gato-x 1.2.1, installed using Python 3.13.3
These environment details are essential for understanding the context in which the bug was encountered. They provide valuable information for developers attempting to reproduce and fix the issue.
In conclusion, the Gato-x script injection vulnerability detection failure represents a significant issue that needs to be addressed. The inconsistency in detecting vulnerabilities, as demonstrated by the missing on-failure job in the report, undermines the tool's reliability and effectiveness. The provided steps to reproduce, along with the supporting screenshot and JSON output, offer a clear understanding of the bug. It is imperative that the developers of Gato-x investigate and rectify this issue to ensure the tool provides accurate and comprehensive security audits. Addressing this bug will enhance the security posture of repositories and workflows, reducing the risk of potential exploits. Further analysis and improvements in the detection algorithm are necessary to achieve this goal.
