chore(eslint): Add eslint rule to flag new RegExp() usage
#10009
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Lms24
commented
Jan 2, 2024
lforst
approved these changes
Jan 2, 2024
anonrig
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 3, 2024
Add a new eslint rule that flags the usage of `new RegExp()` constructor calls. The purpose of this rule is to make us aware of the potential danger of creating a regular expression from (end) user input. This has led to security incidents in the past. To be clear, it is perfectly okay to ignore this rule in cases where we're sure that there's no danger or where input is already escaped.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds a new eslint rule that flags the usage of
new RegExp()constructor calls. The purpose of this rule is to make us aware of the potential danger of creating a regular expression from (end) user input. This has led to security incidents in the past.To be clear, it is perfectly okay to ignore this rule in cases where we're sure that there's no danger or where input is already escaped.
We have other rules (+CodeQL) in place to avoid RegExp usage with static expressions but these didn't cover regular expressions where the expression itself or the flags were constructed from variables.
closes #9960