mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 00:05:49 +02:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People rate agent comments and documents to capture feedback. > - Feedback bundles remove credentials and personal information before export. > - The feedback scanner treats ordinary dotted text as JWTs and authentication terms as bearer tokens. > - This pull request checks encoded JWT headers and preserves known authentication terms. > - The benefit is readable feedback context with credential masking kept in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12309 for the related dotted-identifier false-positive report. This PR fixes the separate feedback scanner. It does not close every case in that report. Related PR: #14318 adds fine-grained GitHub token coverage. It addresses a separate credential form and is not duplicated here. **What happened?** Feedback exports replace `api.openai.com`, dotted filenames, and public schema IDs with a JWT placeholder. They also replace the words after `bearer` in phrases such as “bearer tokens.” Five-part encrypted JWTs are only partly masked. **Expected behavior** Keep public identifiers and authentication terms readable. Mask complete credential tokens. Count only text replacements in the redaction summary. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Pass `api.openai.com` or `Use bearer tokens.` to `sanitizeFeedbackText`. 2. Check that the original text is returned and the redaction counts stay empty. 3. Pass a signed JWT or an encrypted JWT to the same function. 4. Check that the full token is replaced and one JWT replacement is counted. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in the feedback scanner on master at `5e8e992df2b3d71f82091b7bbf29fd482854d9f5`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. The defect is in the shared feedback export service and does not depend on deployment mode. ## What Changed - Use the existing JWT header predicate in the feedback scanner. - Match complete three-part and five-part tokens, including direct-encryption tokens with an empty key segment. Accept short token segments in the predicate. - Preserve the closed set of authentication terms already used by the general scanner, including terms inside closing prose delimiters. - Count only replacements that change the text. - Add tests for readable context, credential masking, nested values, and redaction counts. - Document feedback text redaction. ## Verification - Focused redaction and feedback service tests: 89 tests pass across five suites. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` passes. Full local typecheck, tests, and build were attempted. The kernel killed compiler and test processes at the sandbox memory limit of 4 GB. Serial retries and a capped Node heap still could not complete the server compiler. CI runs the full repository checks. - `git diff --check` passes. - Latest commit `0eb8d3fb4257bb79e67fab615a8299ef69230ad8`: **55 checks passed**, including full typecheck, tests, build, and E2E; two optional Storybook checks were skipped. [CI evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38407932875). Both Greptile findings have regression tests and fixes. [Greptile gives this commit 5/5](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16168#issuecomment-6146917423), with both review threads resolved. ## Risks - This changes the feedback export matching rules. Public dotted text no longer triggers credential masking by shape alone. - Explicit credential assignments, provider keys, structured secret fields, email addresses, and phone numbers remain masked. Tests cover these cases. - Existing feedback snapshots are not rewritten. No schema change or migration is needed. - The encoded-header check remains a heuristic. It is not a full JWT validator. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime identifies the model as GPT-6. It does not expose the exact provider deployment ID or context window size. The earlier patch and this PR preparation were AI-assisted. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
147 lines
5.3 KiB
TypeScript
147 lines
5.3 KiB
TypeScript
export const REDACTED_COMMAND_TEXT_VALUE = "***REDACTED***";
|
|
|
|
// Public Executor helper addresses retained for callers of this predicate.
|
|
// Dotted addresses alone do not meet the JWT credential heuristic.
|
|
const PUBLIC_EXECUTOR_TOOL_SELECTORS = new Set([
|
|
"executor.coreTools.integrations.list",
|
|
"executor.coreTools.connections.list",
|
|
"executor.coreTools.policies.list",
|
|
]);
|
|
export function isPublicExecutorToolSelector(value: string): boolean {
|
|
return PUBLIC_EXECUTOR_TOOL_SELECTORS.has(value);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
const SECRET_NAME_PATTERN = String.raw`[A-Za-z0-9_-]*(?:api[-_]?key|(?:access[-_]?|auth[-_]?)?token|token|authorization(?:[-_]?code)?|bearer|secrets?|passwd|passwords?|credentials?|jwt|private[-_]?key|cookie|connectionstring)(?:[-_]?(?:value|header|prod(?:uction)?|dev(?:elopment)?|test|staging|primary|secondary))*`;
|
|
|
|
const COMMAND_CLI_SECRET_OPTION_RE = new RegExp(
|
|
String.raw`(\B-{1,2}${SECRET_NAME_PATTERN}(?:\s+|=)(["']?))[^\s"'` +
|
|
"`" +
|
|
String.raw`]+(\2)`,
|
|
"gi",
|
|
);
|
|
const COMMAND_ENV_SECRET_ASSIGNMENT_RE = new RegExp(
|
|
String.raw`(\b${SECRET_NAME_PATTERN}\s*=\s*)(?:(\\["'])([\s\S]*?)\2|(["'])([^"'` +
|
|
"`" +
|
|
String.raw`\r\n]*)\4|([^\s"'` +
|
|
"`" +
|
|
String.raw`]+))`,
|
|
"gi",
|
|
);
|
|
const COMMAND_AUTHORIZATION_BEARER_RE =
|
|
/(\bAuthorization\s*:\s*Bearer\s+)[^\s"'`]+/gi;
|
|
const COMMAND_OPENAI_KEY_RE = /\bsk-[A-Za-z0-9_-]{12,}\b/g;
|
|
const COMMAND_GITHUB_TOKEN_RE = /\bgh[pousr]_[A-Za-z0-9_]{20,}\b/g;
|
|
const COMMAND_JWT_RE =
|
|
/\b[A-Za-z0-9_-]{8,}(?:\.[A-Za-z0-9_-]{8,}){2}(?:\.[A-Za-z0-9_-]{8,}\.[A-Za-z0-9_-]{8,})?\b/g;
|
|
/** Recognize encoded JSON headers, without treating dotted identifiers as tokens. */
|
|
export function looksLikeCredentialJwt(value: string): boolean {
|
|
const segments = value.split(".");
|
|
if (![3, 5].includes(segments.length)) return false;
|
|
if (segments.some((part, index) => {
|
|
// Compact JWE direct encryption has no encrypted-key value.
|
|
if (segments.length === 5 && index === 1 && part === "") return false;
|
|
return !/^[A-Za-z0-9_-]+$/.test(part);
|
|
})) return false;
|
|
if (segments[0].startsWith("eyJ")) return true;
|
|
try {
|
|
const header = JSON.parse(atob(segments[0].replace(/-/g, "+").replace(/_/g, "/")));
|
|
return typeof header === "object" && header !== null && typeof header.alg === "string";
|
|
} catch {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
const COMMAND_SECRET_HINTS = [
|
|
"api",
|
|
"key",
|
|
"token",
|
|
"auth",
|
|
"bearer",
|
|
"secret",
|
|
"pass",
|
|
"credential",
|
|
"jwt",
|
|
"private",
|
|
"cookie",
|
|
"connectionstring",
|
|
"sk-",
|
|
"ghp_",
|
|
"gho_",
|
|
"ghu_",
|
|
"ghs_",
|
|
"ghr_",
|
|
] as const;
|
|
|
|
function maybeContainsSecretText(command: string) {
|
|
const lower = command.toLowerCase();
|
|
return (
|
|
COMMAND_SECRET_HINTS.some((hint) => lower.includes(hint)) ||
|
|
command.includes(".")
|
|
);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
export function redactCommandText(
|
|
command: string,
|
|
redactedValue = REDACTED_COMMAND_TEXT_VALUE,
|
|
): string {
|
|
if (!maybeContainsSecretText(command)) return command;
|
|
return command
|
|
.replace(COMMAND_AUTHORIZATION_BEARER_RE, `$1${redactedValue}`)
|
|
.replace(COMMAND_CLI_SECRET_OPTION_RE, `$1${redactedValue}$3`)
|
|
.replace(
|
|
COMMAND_ENV_SECRET_ASSIGNMENT_RE,
|
|
(
|
|
_match,
|
|
prefix: string,
|
|
escapedQuote: string | undefined,
|
|
_escapedValue: string | undefined,
|
|
rawQuote: string | undefined,
|
|
) => {
|
|
const quote = escapedQuote ?? rawQuote;
|
|
return quote
|
|
? `${prefix}${quote}${redactedValue}${quote}`
|
|
: `${prefix}${redactedValue}`;
|
|
},
|
|
)
|
|
.replace(COMMAND_OPENAI_KEY_RE, redactedValue)
|
|
.replace(COMMAND_GITHUB_TOKEN_RE, redactedValue)
|
|
.replace(COMMAND_JWT_RE, (match) => looksLikeCredentialJwt(match) ? redactedValue : match);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// A JSON secret field is a key/value pair such as `"token":"opaque-value"`. The
|
|
// command redaction handles shell `KEY=value` syntax only. A sandbox diagnostic
|
|
// can also carry a serialized JSON error, so the sanitizer must redact the JSON
|
|
// form too. The value body consumes JSON escape sequences. An escaped quote
|
|
// (`\"`) inside the value does not end the match early.
|
|
const JSON_SECRET_FIELD_RE = new RegExp(
|
|
String.raw`("(?:${SECRET_NAME_PATTERN})"\s*:\s*")(?:\\[\s\S]|[^"\\])*(")`,
|
|
"gi",
|
|
);
|
|
// An escaped JSON secret field is the same pair inside a JSON string. The double
|
|
// quote appears as `\"` and a backslash appears as `\\`. The value body
|
|
// consumes the doubled escape sequences. An escaped quote inside the value does
|
|
// not end the match early. The value ends at the next unescaped `\"`.
|
|
const JSON_ESCAPED_SECRET_FIELD_RE = new RegExp(
|
|
String.raw`(\\"(?:${SECRET_NAME_PATTERN})\\"\s*:\s*\\")(?:\\\\\\\\|\\\\\\"|\\\\[\s\S]|[^\\"])*(\\")`,
|
|
"gi",
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
* Redact secrets from an untrusted diagnostic string.
|
|
*
|
|
* The function first runs the command redaction. The command redaction handles
|
|
* shell `KEY=value` assignments, CLI secret options, bearer headers, and common
|
|
* token shapes. The function then redacts JSON and escaped-JSON secret fields,
|
|
* because a sandbox diagnostic can carry a serialized JSON error such as
|
|
* `{"token":"opaque-value"}`. The caller must still bound the length after this
|
|
* step.
|
|
*/
|
|
export function redactDiagnosticText(
|
|
text: string,
|
|
redactedValue = REDACTED_COMMAND_TEXT_VALUE,
|
|
): string {
|
|
return redactCommandText(text, redactedValue)
|
|
.replace(JSON_ESCAPED_SECRET_FIELD_RE, `$1${redactedValue}$2`)
|
|
.replace(JSON_SECRET_FIELD_RE, `$1${redactedValue}$2`);
|
|
}
|