Skip to content
Closed
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ final class MaskedException extends Exception {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;

static Throwable of(@NonNull Throwable unmasked, Pattern pattern) {
if (pattern.toString().length() < 3) {
return unmasked;
}
Comment on lines +15 to +17
Copy link
Member

@jtnord jtnord Jul 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

possibly doesn't work when you have bound multiple credentials (and one is empty?) as the pattern will be built from all of them and still match?
I would rather suggest that the pattern/masker is not even created for an empty credential / match.

Additionally why 2 characters here - is that different to what is masked in the logs? is a user warned in the credential plugin when creating a that a single character password will not be masked?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@MarkEWaite MarkEWaite Jul 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder if a different heuristic (fallible rule) would be a better choice. If the size of the masked exception message is more than 10% larger than the original exception, then we refuse to mask the original exception. That would replace the heuristic that uses regex pattern length with a heuristic that tries to avoid the specific case that was seen at Eclipse where the size of the logged exception message was much larger than the original exception message.

What do you think of that alternative?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

wonder if a different heuristic (fallible rule) would be a better choice. If the size of the masked exception message is more than 10% larger than the original exception, then we refuse to mask the original exception. That would replace the heuristic that uses regex pattern length with a heuristic that tries to avoid the specific case that was seen at Eclipse where the size of the logged exception message was much larger than the original exception message.

What do you think of that alternative?

I am wondering why the console log did not blow up before this change (ie we previously still masked the console log, the security change just added masking of an exception). Is there a reason we can not apply the same logic, perhaps @Kevin-CB recalls?

If the regular console masks a single character (which I believe it does) then I would say the masked exception should also do the same - the whole point of this code is to behave the same and mask what would have been masked in the console to prevent leakage.
A single character secret is insecure and should not be used (you can extrapolate that to small length too), and would create interesting masked console output.

  • TBH not sure why an empty file is any better but well - that should not cause any masking just like in the console.

I would say that heuristics shouldn't be used, we just need the behaviour to match the console.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

public static @NonNull Pattern getAggregateSecretPattern(@NonNull Collection<String> inputs) {
JenkinsJVM.checkJenkinsJVM();
List<SecretPatternFactory> secretPatternFactories = SecretPatternFactory.all();
String pattern = inputs.stream()
.filter(input -> !input.isEmpty())
.flatMap(input ->
secretPatternFactories.stream().flatMap(factory ->
factory.getEncodedForms(input).stream()))
.filter(encoded -> encoded.length() >= MINIMUM_ENCODED_LENGTH)
.sorted(BY_LENGTH_DESCENDING)
.distinct()
.map(Pattern::quote)
.collect(Collectors.joining("|"));
return Pattern.compile(pattern);
}
something strange is going on

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am wondering why the console log did not blow up before this change (ie we previously still masked the console log, the security change just added masking of an exception). Is there a reason we can not apply the same logic, perhaps @Kevin-CB recalls?

There is a check for empty credentials for regular messages on the console log, which wasn't implemented for exceptions.

return of(unmasked, new HashSet<>(), pattern);
}

Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
/*
* The MIT License
*
* Copyright 2025 CloudBees, Inc.
*
* Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
* of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
* in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
* to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
* copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
* furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
*
* The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
* all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
*
* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
* IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
* AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
* LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
* OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
* THE SOFTWARE.
*/
package org.jenkinsci.plugins.credentialsbinding.impl;

import static org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat;
import static org.hamcrest.Matchers.containsString;
import static org.hamcrest.Matchers.not;

import java.util.regex.Pattern;
import org.junit.Rule;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.jvnet.hudson.test.Issue;

public class MaskedExceptionTest {
@Issue("JENKINS-75914")
@Test
public void maskedExceptionIgnoresShortSecretsEmpty() throws Exception {
Exception unmasked = new Exception("An empty pattern for exception mask");
var masked = MaskedException.of(unmasked, Pattern.compile(""));
assertThat(masked.getMessage(), not(containsString("****")));
}

@Issue("JENKINS-75914")
@Test
public void maskedExceptionIgnoresShortSecrets1Char() throws Exception {
Exception unmasked = new Exception("1 character pattern for exception mask");
var masked = MaskedException.of(unmasked, Pattern.compile("e"));
assertThat(masked.getMessage(), not(containsString("****")));
}

@Issue("JENKINS-75914")
@Test
public void maskedExceptionIgnoresShortSecrets2Char() throws Exception {
Exception unmasked = new Exception("2 character pattern for exception mask");
var masked = MaskedException.of(unmasked, Pattern.compile("n "));
assertThat(masked.getMessage(), not(containsString("****")));
}

@Issue("JENKINS-75914")
@Test
public void maskedExceptionIgnoresShortSecrets4Char() throws Exception {
Exception unmasked = new Exception("4 character pattern for exception mask");
var masked = MaskedException.of(unmasked, Pattern.compile("patt"));
assertThat(masked.getMessage(), containsString("****"));
}
}