Skip to content

Conversation

@cinderellasecure
Copy link

@cinderellasecure cinderellasecure commented Oct 29, 2025

As part of the organization's transition to default read-only permissions for the GITHUB_TOKEN, this pull request addresses a missing permission in the workflow that triggered a code scanning alert.

This PR explicitly adds the required read permissions to align with the default read only permission and is part of a larger effort for this OKR https://github.com/github/security-services/issues/455

Potential fixes for 2 code scanning alerts from the Copilot AutoFix: Missing Permissions in Workflows security campaign:

  • https://github.com/github/elastomer-client/security/code-scanning/6
    The best way to fix this issue is to explicitly add a permissions block to the workflow to restrict the granted token permissions to exactly what the workflow needs. Given inspection of the workflow's steps—running Ruby setup, checking out code, caching, downloading, installing, and running tests—none of these steps seem to require write access, and contents: read should be sufficient for basic checkout, dependency installation, and downloading. Therefore, at the workflow root (after the name: and before on:), add:

    permissions:
    contents: read

    Alternatively, this could be done at the job level, but it's best practice to use the workflow root unless finer-grained permissions are truly needed for different jobs.

    Implementation details:

    • File to edit: .github/workflows/main.yml
    • Insert permissions: block after the name: line and before the on: block.
    • No changes or additions needed to existing imports, steps, or method definitions.

  • https://github.com/github/elastomer-client/security/code-scanning/2
    To fix this issue, add an explicit permissions block to limit the GITHUB_TOKEN scope to the least privilege required by the job. For a Rubocop CI job, only read access to the repository contents is needed.

    Specifically:

    • Insert permissions: contents: read either at the root (applies to all jobs) or under jobs.build (for just this job). The root is preferred for clarity unless you have multiple jobs needing different permissions.
    • This can be added above the jobs: key (line 6) for workflow-level permissions.

    No imports, additional methods, or other modifications are required.


Suggested fixes powered by Copilot Autofix. Review carefully before merging.

cinderellasecure and others added 2 commits October 29, 2025 13:26
…n permissions

Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
…n permissions

Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@cinderellasecure cinderellasecure marked this pull request as ready for review October 29, 2025 19:27
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings October 29, 2025 19:27
Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull Request Overview

This PR adds explicit read-only permissions for repository contents to GitHub Actions workflows, following security best practices by implementing the principle of least privilege.

Key Changes:

  • Added permissions block to workflow files to restrict GitHub token permissions
  • Set contents: read as the only permission granted to workflows

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
.github/workflows/rubocop.yml Added permissions block with read-only content access
.github/workflows/main.yml Added permissions block with read-only content access

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants