[Snyk] Security upgrade onfido-sdk-ui from 13.6.1 to 14.15.0 by MelvinBot · Pull Request #37075 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2024-02-22T10:43:21Z

Details

Changes to the following files to upgrade the vulnerable dependencies to a fixed version:
- package.json
- package-lock.json

Vulnerabilities that will be fixed

With an upgrade:

Severity	Priority Score (*)	Issue	Breaking Change	Exploit Maturity
	631/1000 Why? Proof of Concept exploit, Has a fix available, CVSS 6.2	Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime SNYK-JS-INFLIGHT-6095116	Yes	Proof of Concept

(*) Note that the real score may have changed since the PR was raised.

Check the changes in this PR to ensure they won't cause issues with your project.

Fixed Issues

$ #37076

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

The following vulnerabilities are fixed with an upgrade: - https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-INFLIGHT-6095116

melvin-bot · 2024-02-22T10:43:52Z

@marcochavezf Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

marcochavezf · 2024-02-23T01:23:22Z

Requesting a C+ review here, since it's major change we'd want to ensure onfido is not broken for the flows where we add a bank account

DylanDylann · 2024-02-23T01:54:49Z

package-lock.json

        "lottie-react-native": "6.4.1",
        "mapbox-gl": "^2.15.0",
-        "onfido-sdk-ui": "13.6.1",
+        "onfido-sdk-ui": "^14.15.0",


@marcochavezf I see a conflict about the version in package.json and pack-lock.json
package.json: 14.15.0
package-lock.json: ^14.15.0

It doesn't cause any problem, but it's generally a good practice to keep the version specifications consistent between package.json and package-lock.json

Yeah, good call. I agree with the consistency in versions

DylanDylann · 2024-02-23T03:04:19Z

I see a warning

Currently, this lib export {Onfido, prefixVersion}
This is my check on node_module

I think we need to update here

App/src/components/Onfido/BaseOnfidoWeb.js

Line 2 in 72bdedb

import * as OnfidoSDK from 'onfido-sdk-ui';

Ex: import {Onfido as OnfidoSDK} from 'onfido-sdk-ui';

marcochavezf · 2024-02-23T22:38:04Z

Thanks for the review @DylanDylann!

Tested on web and onfido looks good, I added a bank account by following the instructions from the OP of this issue:

Can you test on all platforms by adding a bank account to ensure onfido is not disrupting the bank account flow?

DylanDylann · 2024-02-24T05:43:23Z

@marcochavezf Could you help to confirm step 3 in here

3. Use the following credentials for Chase Bank
Username: user_good
Password: pass_good

I can't log in with this credential

Screen.Recording.2024-02-24.at.12.42.04.mov

marcochavezf · 2024-02-25T18:53:19Z

@marcochavezf Could you help to confirm step 3 in here
3. Use the following credentials for Chase Bank

Username: user_good

Password: pass_good
I can't log in with this credential

Screen.Recording.2024-02-24.at.12.42.04.mov

@DylanDylann ah is that page shown after automatically when you try to add a bank account on web? Looks like a different page to the pop up that should be shown

situchan · 2024-02-25T19:11:14Z

@DylanDylann you're testing against production. Use staging server for plaid to be in sandbox mode (About > Troubleshoot > Use Staging Server)

DylanDylann · 2024-02-26T07:15:03Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
- I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

DylanDylann · 2024-02-26T18:31:40Z

Update progress:

bug.mp4

After finishing Onfido Step, I get an error in step 2. This error came from Onfide lib. And I don't see it in the staging. I still investigating why Onfido returned this error

marcochavezf · 2024-02-27T18:06:07Z

Oh, interesting. What error are you getting from the API command when you click on the Confirm button?

DylanDylann · 2024-02-28T08:09:44Z

@marcochavezf Sorry for my delay. The error is from this function

App/src/components/Onfido/BaseOnfidoWeb.js

Line 88 in e5b3eb2

onError: (error) => {

In the new version, we have some break changes as mentioned here

https://github.com/onfido/onfido-sdk-ui/blob/825d3a1facb6a6b60ae6d67d4a76056f38b2de97/MIGRATION.md

To avoid error, we should remove 2 props because these props is deprecated

App/src/components/Onfido/BaseOnfidoWeb.js

Lines 94 to 100 in e5b3eb2

    
           onUserExit: (userExitCode) => { 
        
               Log.hmmm('Onfido user exits the flow', {userExitCode}); 
        
               onUserExit(userExitCode); 
        
           }, 
        
           onModalRequestClose: () => { 
        
               Log.hmmm('Onfido user closed the modal'); 
        
           },

DylanDylann · 2024-02-28T08:18:16Z

After removing onUserExit and onModalRequestClose props to resolve error. I have a new block at this step

In this step, is there any way to mock data or do I need to upload my information to go the the next step?

Asked on Slack

DylanDylann · 2024-02-28T08:58:07Z

@marcochavezf Also please help to merge main

DylanDylann · 2024-02-28T10:57:53Z

ConnectBankAccount.mp4

@marcochavezf I used mock data to pass over this block . Everything worked well, but It seems we still need to verify the data in Concierge Chat

marcochavezf · 2024-03-01T20:53:19Z

Hi @DylanDylann, sorry for the delay, could you better create a PR that address the breaking changes and then we close this one?

DylanDylann · 2024-03-05T06:50:07Z

@marcochavezf The new PR is created here. Let's close this one

marcochavezf · 2024-03-05T17:24:24Z

Sounds good, closing it

fix: package.json & package-lock.json to reduce vulnerabilities

05f6521

The following vulnerabilities are fixed with an upgrade: - https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-INFLIGHT-6095116

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner February 22, 2024 10:43

melvin-bot bot requested review from marcochavezf and removed request for a team February 22, 2024 10:43

marcochavezf requested a review from DylanDylann February 23, 2024 01:23

DylanDylann reviewed Feb 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcochavezf mentioned this pull request Feb 23, 2024

[Pending Checklist] [Snyk] Security upgrade onfido-sdk-ui from 13.6.1 to 14.15.0 #37076

Closed

marcochavezf added 2 commits February 23, 2024 16:15

Update onfido package to a consistent version

2443def

Update import statement for OnfidoSDK in BaseOnfidoWeb.js

df07ecb

marcochavezf closed this Mar 5, 2024

Conversation

MelvinBot commented Feb 22, 2024 • edited by marcochavezf Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Details

Vulnerabilities that will be fixed

With an upgrade:

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 22, 2024

Uh oh!

marcochavezf commented Feb 23, 2024

Uh oh!

DylanDylann Feb 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marcochavezf Feb 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Feb 23, 2024

Uh oh!

marcochavezf commented Feb 23, 2024

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Feb 24, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

marcochavezf commented Feb 25, 2024

Uh oh!

situchan commented Feb 25, 2024

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Feb 26, 2024

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Feb 26, 2024

Uh oh!

marcochavezf commented Feb 27, 2024

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Feb 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Feb 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

marcochavezf commented Mar 1, 2024

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Mar 5, 2024

Uh oh!

marcochavezf commented Mar 5, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

MelvinBot commented Feb 22, 2024 •

edited by marcochavezf

Loading

DylanDylann commented Feb 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

DylanDylann commented Feb 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

DylanDylann commented Feb 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading