Skip to content

Conversation

@Jino-T
Copy link
Contributor

@Jino-T Jino-T commented Oct 27, 2025

[sc-11934]

Tested and functional in API & Pro UI

Not able to remove found_by value associated with finding's test.

  • Ex: If finding was imported with Semgrep parser, you are unable to remove Semgrep from the found_by field.
  • A separate portion of code must check to make sure that this value is always present in found_by.
  • Let me know if you want me to look into this further and allow this functionality.

@dryrunsecurity
Copy link

dryrunsecurity bot commented Oct 27, 2025

DryRun Security

🔴 Risk threshold exceeded.

This pull request modifies a sensitive file (dojo/api_v2/serializers.py) with detected sensitive edits; review is recommended and you can configure sensitive paths and allowed authors in .dryrunsecurity.yaml. The scanner flagged the same file twice at a failing risk threshold but the findings are non-blocking.

🔴 Configured Codepaths Edit in dojo/api_v2/serializers.py
Vulnerability Configured Codepaths Edit
Description Sensitive edits detected for this file. Sensitive file paths and allowed authors can be configured in .dryrunsecurity.yaml.
🔴 Configured Codepaths Edit in dojo/api_v2/serializers.py
Vulnerability Configured Codepaths Edit
Description Sensitive edits detected for this file. Sensitive file paths and allowed authors can be configured in .dryrunsecurity.yaml.

We've notified @mtesauro.


All finding details can be found in the DryRun Security Dashboard.

@Maffooch Maffooch changed the title Added Ability to Edit found_by value in Pro-UI and API Added Ability to Edit found_by value in API Oct 27, 2025
@valentijnscholten
Copy link
Member

I wonder how this field is used/edited? In the code it looks like it's only used to maintain a list of test types that reported this finding via the set of duplicates?

Use found_by.set to better replace values

Co-authored-by: Cody Maffucci <[email protected]>
@Jino-T
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jino-T commented Oct 28, 2025

Good idea Cody. I tested your suggestion and it works in the API.

@Jino-T Jino-T requested a review from Maffooch October 28, 2025 15:48
@Jino-T Jino-T dismissed Maffooch’s stale review October 28, 2025 15:48

Changes were made

@Maffooch Maffooch requested a review from blakeaowens October 28, 2025 16:16
@valentijnscholten valentijnscholten added this to the 2.52.0 milestone Oct 28, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@mtesauro mtesauro left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Approved

@Maffooch Maffooch requested a review from blakeaowens October 29, 2025 17:31
@Maffooch Maffooch requested a review from blakeaowens October 29, 2025 17:32
@Maffooch
Copy link
Contributor

Not sure if three approvals is quite enough...

@Maffooch Maffooch merged commit 62ba5e5 into DefectDojo:dev Oct 29, 2025
151 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants