RE: #390: More redactable properties

["Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc)" <v-lgold@microsoft.com>]

Late breaking: It turns out that we cannot allow URI-valued properties to be redactable.

 

The reason is that it would require a schema change to remove the constraints that these properties conform to the URI format. This in turn badly breaks the SDK (which declares these properties as System.Uri) in a way that we simply cannot absorb.

 

This means:

• A couple of the properties that Yekaterina asked to be redactable, such as invocation.workingDirectory, cannot be. This is not a serious problem because uriBaseIds can be used to hide the sensitive leading portion of the URI (or the property can be omitted entirely).
• Jim’s Issue #377, which concerned the treatment of URIs with redacted path segments, becomes moot.

 

Sorry for the churn. I will revise the provisional draft and close #377.

 

Thanks,

Larry

 

From: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc)
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 11:02 AM
To: OASIS SARIF TC Discussion List <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [sarif] #390: More redactable properties
Importance: High

 

I created and merged a change draft for Yekaterina’s Issue #390, “Make certain invocation and versionControlDetails properties redactable”:

 

https://github.com/oasis-tcs/sarif-spec/blob/master/Documents/ChangeDrafts/Accepted/sarif-v2.0-issue-390-more-redactable-properties.docx

 

Among the newly redactable properties are the values and names of the properties in invocation.environmentVariables. But this requires that the string-valued run.redactionToken become an array redactionTokens, because otherwise two redacted environment variable names would have the same JSON property name, which is not allowed.

 

The good news is that we were going to have to do this anyway to accommodate Jim’s Issue #377, “Each redaction token in an originalUriBaseIds represents a unique location,” so now we have two reasons to do it.

 

Furthermore, this change requires that we clarify what it means to redact a URI-valued property (because the result might not be a valid URI). This too was going to be needed for #377, so the good news is, I’ve got a big head start on writing the draft for #377.

 

Please take a look as we close down the spec today in preparation for Monday’s ballot.

 

Thanks,

Larry