[security-fix] Fix hardcoded credentials false positive in safe_outputs_steps.go (Alert #433)

[github-actions]

Security Fix: Hardcoded Credentials False Positive in Safe Output Steps

Alert Number: #433
Severity: High (but LOW confidence - false positive)
Rule: G101 - Potential hardcoded credentials
Tool: gosec (Golang security checks)
Location: pkg/workflow/safe_outputs_steps.go:87

Vulnerability Description

Gosec detected a potential hardcoded credential at line 87 (now line 88 after changes) where the code sets:

token = "${{ secrets.COPILOT_TOKEN || secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}"

However, this is a FALSE POSITIVE. The G101 rule is flagging a GitHub Actions expression template as a hardcoded credential, when in reality:

1. NO actual credentials are hardcoded - The string ${{ secrets.COPILOT_TOKEN || secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} is a placeholder
2. GitHub Actions runtime replaces it - At workflow execution time, GitHub Actions substitutes this template with the actual secret value
3. Standard GitHub Actions pattern - This is the idiomatic way to reference secrets in GitHub Actions workflows
4. Low confidence detection - Gosec itself marked this as "Confidence: LOW" indicating uncertainty

Fix Applied

Enhanced the #nosec G101 comment and added an inline #nosec directive to properly suppress the false positive alert:

Before:

if useCopilotToken {
    // #nosec G101 -- This is not a hardcoded credential, it's a GitHub Actions expression template
    // that will be rendered in the workflow YAML to reference secrets at runtime
    token = "${{ secrets.COPILOT_TOKEN || secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}"

After:

if useCopilotToken {
    // #nosec G101 -- This is NOT a hardcoded credential. It's a GitHub Actions expression template
    // "${{ secrets.COPILOT_TOKEN || secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}" that GitHub Actions runtime substitutes
    // with the actual secret value at workflow execution time. The string is a placeholder, not a credential.
    token = "${{ secrets.COPILOT_TOKEN || secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}" // #nosec G101

This approach:

• Enhances the explanatory comment with more detail about the false positive
• Adds an inline #nosec G101 directive on the same line as the assignment
• Maintains full functionality - the GitHub Actions expression continues to work correctly
• Follows best practices for handling false positives in static analysis

Why This Is a False Positive

1. Template, Not Value: The string is a GitHub Actions expression template, not an actual credential
2. Runtime Substitution: GitHub Actions engine substitutes the placeholder at runtime
3. No Information Disclosure: The source code contains no secret values
4. Industry Standard: All GitHub Actions workflows use this pattern for secret references
5. Low Confidence: Gosec marked this as LOW confidence, acknowledging uncertainty
6. Similar to Alert [Custom Engine Test] Test Pull Request - Custom Engine Safe Output #440: This is the same false positive pattern that was fixed in PR [security-fix] Fix hardcoded credentials false positive in copilot execution (Alert #440) #8840

Security Best Practices

✅ No hardcoded credentials: Source code contains only template placeholders
✅ Proper secret management: Actual secrets stored securely in GitHub Secrets
✅ Runtime substitution: Secrets injected at execution time, never in source
✅ Clear documentation: Enhanced comment explains why this is safe
✅ Minimal change: Only adds clarifying comment and inline directive, no functional changes

Testing

✅ Build succeeded: go build ./pkg/workflow/... passes without errors
✅ No breaking changes: GitHub Actions expression continues to work correctly
✅ No functional changes: Only adds explanatory comment and inline directive
✅ Maintains security: No actual credentials exposed

Impact Assessment

Risk: None
Breaking Changes: None
Backwards Compatibility: Full
Performance: No impact

The fix only enhances a clarifying comment and adds an inline #nosec directive to suppress a false positive alert. All functionality remains unchanged, and no actual security risk exists.

Why This Approach Is Correct

1. False Positive Handling: Using #nosec with detailed justification is the recommended approach for false positives
2. Inline Directive: Placing #nosec on the same line as the flagged code is the most reliable way to suppress gosec warnings
3. Maintains Code Quality: Prevents alert fatigue from false positives
4. Educational Value: Enhanced comment explains GitHub Actions secret patterns for future maintainers
5. Follows Go Best Practices: Documented use of linter suppressions with clear justification

Files Modified

• pkg/workflow/safe_outputs_steps.go:
  • Lines 85-88: Enhanced #nosec G101 comment with detailed false positive explanation
  • Line 88: Added inline #nosec G101 directive on the assignment line

References

• CodeQL Alert: https://github.com/githubnext/gh-aw/security/code-scanning/433
• Gosec G101: Potential hardcoded credentials
• GitHub Actions Secrets: Using secrets in GitHub Actions
• GitHub Actions Expressions: Expressions documentation
• Related Fix: PR [security-fix] Fix hardcoded credentials false positive in copilot execution (Alert #440) #8840 (Alert [Custom Engine Test] Test Pull Request - Custom Engine Safe Output #440) - Similar false positive

---

🤖 Generated by Security Fix Agent in workflow run 20694378469

AI generated by Security Fix PR