Assess your understanding of secure code reviews and best practices for managing pull request workflows. This quiz focuses on key concepts, common vulnerabilities, and techniques to ensure code integrity and security throughout the development process.
During a secure code review, which practice best helps identify potential injection vulnerabilities in user-input handling functions?
Explanation: Ensuring user inputs are validated and properly sanitized is crucial for preventing injection vulnerabilities, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting. Assuming all user inputs are trusted by default is dangerous and leaves the code open to attacks. Only checking for syntax errors ignores logical and security issues. Skipping code reviews for seemingly simple functions risks overlooking vulnerabilities that could exist in any part of the codebase.
What is the main goal of conducting a pull request review before merging code into the main branch?
Explanation: The main purpose of a pull request review is to ensure that the code being merged adheres to established security and quality standards, minimizing the risk of vulnerabilities and defects. Increasing commit count does not improve security or quality. Rewarding speed overlooks thoroughness. Automatic conflict resolution is important, but it does not address code quality or security.
Which action should a reviewer take if an API key or credential is accidentally committed within a pull request?
Explanation: If a secret is exposed in a pull request, the reviewer should request its immediate removal and rotation to prevent potential misuse or compromise. Approving the pull request or ignoring the issue, even in a private repository, is unsafe because secrets can be leaked, and repositories may become public in the future. Leaving credentials in code for convenience is a risky practice and violates secure development guidelines.
When providing feedback on a pull request with several security issues, which approach is most effective to encourage a secure codebase and positive collaboration?
Explanation: Providing clear, constructive feedback and encouraging discussion leads to better understanding and remediation of security flaws, improving both code and collaboration. Rejecting without explanation is unhelpful and may demotivate contributors. Focusing solely on formatting issues misses critical security concerns. Approving flawed code to avoid delays can introduce vulnerabilities into the codebase.
What should be verified when reviewing a pull request that adds a new third-party library as a dependency?
Explanation: Assessing the source, ongoing maintenance, and security reputation of a third-party library helps reduce risks from outdated or vulnerable dependencies. File names and logos have no impact on the library's security or suitability. While size may sometimes matter for performance, it is unrelated to secure coding practices or dependency trustworthiness.