보안: canonicalFile 심볼릭 링크 우회 취약점 수정

[seonghobae]

보안 취약점 수정 내역

File(topDir).canonicalFile를 사용하여 시작 디렉토리를 처리할 때, 사용자가 심볼릭 링크를 입력하면 canonicalFile이 의도치 않게 심볼릭 링크를 실제 경로로 해석해버리는 취약점이 존재했습니다. 이로 인해 후속 isDirectory(..., LinkOption.NOFOLLOW_LINKS) 검사가 우회되어 원래 제한하려던 심볼릭 링크 디렉토리가 허용될 수 있었습니다.

이 패치는 경로를 정규화만 하고 파일 시스템에서 실제 경로를 추적하지 않는 .toPath().toAbsolutePath().normalize().toFile() 방식을 사용하도록 코드를 변경합니다.

• Vulnerability: 경로 탐색 및 심볼릭 링크 검사 우회
• Fix: canonicalFile 제거 후 정규화 방식 사용
• Tests: 누락된 분기에 대한 커버리지를 높이기 위해 새로운 단위 테스트를 추가했습니다.
• Journal: Sentinel 규정에 따라 보안 학습 내용을 .jules/sentinel.md에 한국어로 추가 기록했습니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 647674770020108452 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH .jules/sentinel.md:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.jules/sentinel.md, patch_test.diff, src/main/kotlin/html4tree/main.kt, src/test/kotlin/html4tree/MainTest.kt); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 192c1dc866f60f89f829c3c59073636313d811f7
• Workflow run: 28476711148
• Workflow attempt: 1

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (4 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (4 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

HIGH OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: the model pool exhausted without a valid current-head review control block, so this changed line cannot be approved from deterministic check state alone.
• Impact: PR-intent mismatches, missing files, robustness bugs, UX/DX regressions, and CodeGraph-backed flow changes could be missed.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or add the missing source/test/docs/generated verification evidence needed for a source-backed approval.
• Verification: rerun the OpenCode Review workflow and confirm it emits APPROVE or source-backed REQUEST_CHANGES for this head SHA.

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 192c1dc866f60f89f829c3c59073636313d811f7
• Workflow run: 28476711148
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH .jules/sentinel.md:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.jules/sentinel.md, patch_test.diff, src/main/kotlin/html4tree/main.kt, src/test/kotlin/html4tree/MainTest.kt); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 192c1dc866f60f89f829c3c59073636313d811f7
• Workflow run: 28476711148
• Workflow attempt: 1

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (4 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (4 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading