🛡️ Sentinel: [security improvement] Fix implicit shell usage in probe capability

[seonghobae]

🚨 Severity: MEDIUM
💡 Vulnerability: scripts/ci/sandboxed_web_e2e.py 파일 내 _probe_isolation_capability 함수의 subprocess.run 호출에 shell=False 인자가 명시되어 있지 않아, Bandit 보안 검사에서 잠재적인 암묵적 셸 사용 취약점(B603)으로 보고되었습니다.
🎯 Impact: 현재 입력값이 하드코딩되어 있어 즉각적인 취약점은 없으나, 향후 외부 입력값이 명령어로 전달될 경우 셸 삽입(Shell Injection) 공격에 노출될 수 있습니다.
🔧 Fix: subprocess.run 호출 시 shell=False 인자를 명시적으로 추가하여 암묵적인 셸 실행을 방지했습니다. 또한 tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py 내의 모의(Mock) 함수인 _fake_run이 kwargs를 캡처하도록 업데이트하고, shell 인자가 False로 전달되었는지 검증하는 assertion을 추가하여 보안 속성을 보장합니다.
✅ Verification: 전체 테스트 슈트를 실행하여 100% 코드 커버리지를 유지하고 모든 테스트가 성공하는 것을 확인했습니다 (pytest, interrogate).

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 4100240205001182484 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.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Draft PR not reviewed

Draft PRs are not automatically reviewed by default.

• Trigger a manual review

To automatically review draft PRs, update your CodeRabbit configuration:

reviews:
  auto_review:
    drafts: true

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[seonghobae]

Independent verification (host 1 session, 2026-09-05).

Behavior: no change. The call this PR edits (scripts/ci/sandboxed_web_e2e.py:237, _probe_isolation_capability) passes probe_command, a Python list built at :225-235, so subprocess.run already runs with shell=False — that is the keyword's default for list argv. Adding it explicitly changes nothing at runtime.

Consistency: yes. The file's two other subprocess call sites already spell it out (:461 in the Popen at :453, :603 in the run at :594), so this makes the third site match the file's own convention. The test extension pins the kwarg (captured["kwargs"].get("shell") is False), which is the right shape for a convention pin.

Scope check: +1/-0 and +2/-0, exactly as described; no other files. Nothing to repair. This is a normal-path PR, not a bypass candidate — it should just go through review.

[google-labs-jules]

Independent verification (host 1 session, 2026-09-05).

Behavior: no change. The call this PR edits (scripts/ci/sandboxed_web_e2e.py:237, _probe_isolation_capability) passes probe_command, a Python list built at :225-235, so subprocess.run already runs with shell=False — that is the keyword's default for list argv. Adding it explicitly changes nothing at runtime.

Consistency: yes. The file's two other subprocess call sites already spell it out (:461 in the Popen at :453, :603 in the run at :594), so this makes the third site match the file's own convention. The test extension pins the kwarg (captured["kwargs"].get("shell") is False), which is the right shape for a convention pin.

Scope check: +1/-0 and +2/-0, exactly as described; no other files. Nothing to repair. This is a normal-path PR, not a bypass candidate — it should just go through review.

Acknowledged. The explicit shell=False is indeed a convention consistency enhancement and matches the behavior at runtime.

[seonghobae]

2026-09-20 protected-base admission correction for 3509d9fdeaf0f3b1b6ced13574adb0ded7a7f790.

GitHub reports this Ready PR mechanically non-mergeable. Exact comparison with protected main is diverged and 365 commits behind; CodeQL is terminal failure and no formal review exists. Historical receipts cannot authorize the current protected-base merge.

Moving the PR to Draft / Proposed preserves every commit, review, thread, and valid delta. This is not closure or abandonment. Reconcile protected main through an ordinary non-force merge, repair valid findings, run terminal exact-head protection, and obtain qualifying independent current-head approval before returning to Ready. No review dismissal, synthetic status, manual rerun, bypass, Force Push, merge, or Close is authorized.

[google-labs-jules]

2026-09-20 protected-base admission correction for 3509d9fdeaf0f3b1b6ced13574adb0ded7a7f790.

GitHub reports this Ready PR mechanically non-mergeable. Exact comparison with protected main is diverged and 365 commits behind; CodeQL is terminal failure and no formal review exists. Historical receipts cannot authorize the current protected-base merge.

Moving the PR to Draft / Proposed preserves every commit, review, thread, and valid delta. This is not closure or abandonment. Reconcile protected main through an ordinary non-force merge, repair valid findings, run terminal exact-head protection, and obtain qualifying independent current-head approval before returning to Ready. No review dismissal, synthetic status, manual rerun, bypass, Force Push, merge, or Close is authorized.

Understood. The PR has diverged significantly from main and is structurally non-mergeable due to missing terminal verdicts and CI failures. Since this is a protected-base admission correction moving the PR to Draft to preserve historical data, I am acknowledging that work on this specific PR instance is superseded by the requirement to sync with main. Stopping work.

[seonghobae]

Closing as a duplicate of the semantic no-op already decided in #1390 (and #2129): subprocess.run/Popen default to shell=False, and _probe_isolation_capability passes an argv list, so adding the keyword changes no behavior or security boundary. start_service/run_shell on main already pass shell=False explicitly. Branch and commits remain recoverable; reopen if a reproduced shell-execution path is found.

[google-labs-jules]

Closing as a duplicate of the semantic no-op already decided in #1390 (and #2129): subprocess.run/Popen default to shell=False, and _probe_isolation_capability passes an argv list, so adding the keyword changes no behavior or security boundary. start_service/run_shell on main already pass shell=False explicitly. Branch and commits remain recoverable; reopen if a reproduced shell-execution path is found.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is a duplicate of a previously decided semantic no-op and stopping work on this task.