🛡️ Sentinel: [HIGH] Fix URL 인코딩된 경로 탐색 취약점 (Path Traversal)

[seonghobae]

🚨 Severity: HIGH
💡 Vulnerability: carddav_discovery.py와 archive.py에서 URL 인코딩된 경로 탐색 문법(예: %2e%2e 즉 ..)을 검증할 때, unquote()로 사전 디코딩하지 않아 필터링을 우회할 수 있는 취약점이 있었습니다.
🎯 Impact: 공격자가 악의적으로 조작된 URL 경로(예: /%2e%2e/etc/passwd)를 주입하여 내부 파일 시스템을 탐색하거나 SSRF 과정에서 예상치 못한 컨텍스트 경로로 빠져나갈 위험이 있습니다.
🔧 Fix: path.split("/") 전에 urllib.parse.unquote()를 사용하여 URL 인코딩된 페이로드가 정확하게 디코딩 및 차단되도록 방어 로직을 강화했습니다.
✅ Verification: backend/tests/에 임시 스크립트로 URL 인코딩된 경로에 대한 방어 여부를 확인하고, 전체 백엔드 테스트 스위트를 성공적으로 통과(pytest -q --ignore=tests/live/)했습니다. 모든 변경사항은 CHANGELOG.md와 보안 저널에 기록했습니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 609834298297248298 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[github-actions]

PR governance metadata gate is not ready for 960d23ad818a692def9dc734c0a3594c98415351:

• Review decision is CHANGES_REQUESTED; address requested changes before merge.

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 960d23ad818a692def9dc734c0a3594c98415351.

• Head SHA: 960d23ad818a692def9dc734c0a3594c98415351

• Workflow run: 29569701829

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Decision

• Result: FAIL
• Test evidence: not proven passing
• Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
• Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 960d23ad818a692def9dc734c0a3594c98415351
• Workflow run: 29569701829
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 960d23ad818a692def9dc734c0a3594c98415351.

• Head SHA: 960d23ad818a692def9dc734c0a3594c98415351

• Workflow run: 29569701829

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Decision

• Result: FAIL
• Test evidence: not proven passing
• Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
• Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]

Loading