Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @levouinse, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request introduces several new features and improvements to the Cookie Editor extension. It adds functionalities such as cookie encryption, copy to clipboard, bulk operations, cookie history, monitoring, advanced search, synchronization, template management, validation, and centralized error handling. These enhancements provide users with more control, security, and convenience when managing cookies. Highlights
Changelog
Activity
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces a significant number of new features, including cookie encryption, bulk operations, history, monitoring, and more. The new modules are generally well-structured. However, I've identified a critical security vulnerability in the encryption implementation that should be addressed. Additionally, there are several opportunities to improve code robustness, prevent potential runtime errors, and enhance maintainability by refactoring duplicated code and using modern APIs for generating unique IDs.
| await new Promise((resolve, reject) => { | ||
| this.cookieHandler.saveCookie( | ||
| updated, | ||
| this.cookieHandler.currentTab.url, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Accessing this.cookieHandler.currentTab.url is unsafe as this.cookieHandler.currentTab could be null or undefined, which would cause a TypeError. This same issue exists in bulkDelete on line 62. Using optional chaining (?.) would prevent this potential runtime error. You should also consider how to handle the case where the URL is not available.
| this.cookieHandler.currentTab.url, | |
| this.cookieHandler.currentTab?.url, |
| const key = await crypto.subtle.importKey( | ||
| 'raw', | ||
| await crypto.subtle.digest('SHA-256', passwordBuffer), | ||
| { name: 'AES-GCM' }, | ||
| false, | ||
| ['encrypt'] | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using a single round of SHA-256 to derive an encryption key from a password is not secure. This method is vulnerable to dictionary and rainbow table attacks. It's crucial to use a standard key derivation function (KDF) like PBKDF2 with a randomly generated salt for each encryption.
I recommend the following changes:
- Use
crypto.subtle.deriveKeywith thePBKDF2algorithm. - Generate a random salt (e.g., 16 bytes) for each encryption using
crypto.getRandomValues. - Store the salt along with the IV and the ciphertext (e.g.,
salt || iv || ciphertext). - Update the
decryptfunction to extract the salt and use it in the key derivation process.
| matchPattern(value, pattern) { | ||
| const regex = new RegExp( | ||
| '^' + pattern.replace(/\*/g, '.*').replace(/\?/g, '.') + '$', | ||
| 'i' | ||
| ); | ||
| return regex.test(value); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The matchPattern function is vulnerable to regex injection. While it replaces * and ?, it doesn't escape other special regex characters (e.g., . + ( ) [ ]). A user-provided pattern containing these characters could lead to unexpected behavior or a Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) attack. You should escape all special regex characters from the input pattern before creating the RegExp.
A safer implementation would be:
matchPattern(value, pattern) {
const escapedPattern = pattern.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\]/g, '\\$&');
const regex = new RegExp(
'^' + escapedPattern.replace(/\\*/g, '.*').replace(/\\?/g, '.') + '$',
'i'
);
return regex.test(value);
}| * @param {object} updates Properties to update. | ||
| * @param {function} callback | ||
| */ | ||
| async bulkEdit(filterFn, updates, callback) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The bulkEdit and bulkDelete methods are declared as async but use a callback-based approach instead of returning a promise. This is inconsistent with modern async/await patterns and the filterExport method in the same class. Refactoring to return a promise would make the API more consistent and easier to use with other async code.
| try { | ||
| const successful = document.execCommand('copy'); | ||
| document.body.removeChild(textarea); | ||
| return successful; | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| console.error('Fallback copy failed:', error); | ||
| document.body.removeChild(textarea); | ||
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The call to document.body.removeChild(textarea) is duplicated in both the try and catch blocks. This can be simplified by using a finally block to ensure the cleanup code is executed regardless of whether an error occurred, reducing code duplication and improving maintainability.
| try { | |
| const successful = document.execCommand('copy'); | |
| document.body.removeChild(textarea); | |
| return successful; | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| console.error('Fallback copy failed:', error); | |
| document.body.removeChild(textarea); | |
| return false; | |
| } | |
| } | |
| let successful = false; | |
| try { | |
| successful = document.execCommand('copy'); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| console.error('Fallback copy failed:', error); | |
| } finally { | |
| document.body.removeChild(textarea); | |
| } | |
| return successful; |
| const history = await this.getHistory(); | ||
|
|
||
| const entry = { | ||
| id: Date.now() + Math.random(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using Date.now() + Math.random() to generate IDs is not guaranteed to be unique. While collisions are rare, they can happen, especially if operations occur in very quick succession. For generating unique identifiers, it's better to use a more robust method like crypto.randomUUID(), which is supported in modern browsers and provides a much stronger guarantee of uniqueness.
| id: Date.now() + Math.random(), | |
| id: crypto.randomUUID(), |
| case 'edit': | ||
| if (lastEntry.previousState) { | ||
| await new Promise((resolve, reject) => { | ||
| this.cookieHandler.saveCookie( | ||
| lastEntry.previousState, | ||
| lastEntry.url, | ||
| (error, result) => (error ? reject(error) : resolve(result)) | ||
| ); | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
| break; | ||
|
|
||
| case 'delete': | ||
| if (lastEntry.previousState) { | ||
| await new Promise((resolve, reject) => { | ||
| this.cookieHandler.saveCookie( | ||
| lastEntry.previousState, | ||
| lastEntry.url, | ||
| (error, result) => (error ? reject(error) : resolve(result)) | ||
| ); | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
| break; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The logic inside the case 'edit': and case 'delete': blocks is identical. This code duplication can be avoided by allowing the case 'edit': to fall through to the case 'delete': block, making the code more concise and easier to maintain.
| case 'edit': | |
| if (lastEntry.previousState) { | |
| await new Promise((resolve, reject) => { | |
| this.cookieHandler.saveCookie( | |
| lastEntry.previousState, | |
| lastEntry.url, | |
| (error, result) => (error ? reject(error) : resolve(result)) | |
| ); | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| break; | |
| case 'delete': | |
| if (lastEntry.previousState) { | |
| await new Promise((resolve, reject) => { | |
| this.cookieHandler.saveCookie( | |
| lastEntry.previousState, | |
| lastEntry.url, | |
| (error, result) => (error ? reject(error) : resolve(result)) | |
| ); | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| break; | |
| case 'edit': | |
| case 'delete': | |
| if (lastEntry.previousState) { | |
| await new Promise((resolve, reject) => { | |
| this.cookieHandler.saveCookie( | |
| lastEntry.previousState, | |
| lastEntry.url, | |
| (error, result) => (error ? reject(error) : resolve(result)) | |
| ); | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| break; |
| */ | ||
| async addRule(rule) { | ||
| const rules = await this.getRules(); | ||
| rule.id = Date.now() + Math.random(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using Date.now() + Math.random() for generating rule IDs is not a reliable method for ensuring uniqueness. Consider using crypto.randomUUID() to generate a truly unique identifier for each rule. This will prevent potential collisions.
| rule.id = Date.now() + Math.random(); | |
| rule.id = crypto.randomUUID(); |
1 participant
cookie encryption, copy to clipboard icon, bulk operations etc.