Files
Charon/docs/reports/qa_report.md

40 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown

# QA & Security Report: Supply Chain Workflow Validation
**Date:** February 6, 2026
**Target:** `.github/workflows/supply-chain-pr.yml`
**Auditor:** QA Security Engineer (Gemini 3 Pro)
**Action:** Pre-commit Validation & Logic Audit
## 1. Automated Validation (Pre-commit)
**Status:** ✅ **PASS**
All pre-commit hooks executed successfully on the codebase.
- **YAML Syntax:** Validated via `check-yaml`. No syntax errors found.
- **Linting:** Validated via standard hooks. Code style is compliant.
- **Consistency:** No trailing whitespace or end-of-file issues.
## 2. Logic & Security Audit (`supply-chain-pr.yml`)
### A. Workflow Structure & Triggers
* **Trigger Mechanism:** The workflow correctly uses `on: workflow_run` with `types: [completed]` to wait for the "Docker Build, Publish & Test" workflow.
* **Security Verdict:****Secure**. This separates the privileged supply chain verification (read/write access to security events/PRs) from the potentially untrusted build context.
* **Conditions:** The `if` condition `github.event.workflow_run.conclusion == 'success'` correctly ensures verification strictly follows successful builds.
### B. Input Handling & Injection Prevention
* **Findings:** The bash scripts utilize environment variables (e.g., `"${INPUT_PR_NUMBER}"`) instead of inline template injection (e.g., `${{ inputs.pr_number }}`) for execution.
* **Impact:** This mitigates script injection risks from malicious input (branch names, PR titles).
* **Verdict:****Secure**.
### C. Logical Flow (Artifact Handover)
* **Execution Order Verified:**
1. `check-artifact`: Identifies the `pr-image-*` artifact from the triggering run.
2. `download` / `load`: Retrieves and loads the image *before* the SBOM generation steps.
3. `set-target`: Correctly resolves the image name from the loaded artifact context.
* **Verdict:****Valid**. The dependency chain is logically sound and ensures the scanner targets the correct image.
## 3. Conclusion
The `supply-chain-pr.yml` workflow is syntactically correct, logically sound, and adheres to security best practices for `workflow_run` usage. The explicit separation of "Build" (untrusted) and "Verify" (privileged) contexts is correctly implemented.
**Risk Rating:** 🟢 **LOW**
**Recommendation:** Approved for production use.