Injection is #1 on the 2013 OWASP Top Ten web security risks. SQL injection is when a user is able to manipulate a value which is used unsafely inside a SQL query. This can lead to data leaks, data loss, elevation of privilege, and other unpleasant outcomes.

Brakeman focuses on ActiveRecord methods dealing with building SQL statements.

A basic (Rails 2.x) example looks like this:

User.first(:conditions => "username = '#{params[:username]}'")

Brakeman would produce a warning like this:

Possible SQL injection near line 30: User.first(:conditions => ("username = '#{params[:username]}'"))

The safe way to do this query is to use a parameterized query:

User.first(:conditions => ["username = ?", params[:username]])

Brakeman also understands the new Rails 3.x way of doing things (and local variables and concatenation):

username = params[:user][:name].downcase
password = params[:user][:password]

User.first.where("username = '" + username + "' AND password = '" + password + "'")

This results in this kind of warning:

Possible SQL injection near line 37:
User.first.where((((("username = '" + params[:user][:name].downcase) + "' AND password = '") + params[:user][:password]) + "'"))

See the Ruby Security Guide for more information and Rails-SQLi.org for many examples of SQL injection in Rails.

Injection is #1 on the 2010 OWASP Top Ten web security risks. Command injection occurs when shell commands unsafely include user-manipulatable values.

There are many ways to run commands in Ruby:

`ls #{params[:file]}`

system("ls #{params[:dir]}")

exec("md5sum #{params[:input]}")

Brakeman will warn on any method like these that uses user input or unsafely interpolates variables.

See the Ruby Security Guide for details.

Injection is #1 on the 2013 OWASP Top Ten web security risks. SQL injection is when a user is able to manipulate a value which is used unsafely inside a SQL query. This can lead to data leaks, data loss, elevation of privilege, and other unpleasant outcomes.

Brakeman focuses on ActiveRecord methods dealing with building SQL statements.

A basic (Rails 2.x) example looks like this:

User.first(:conditions => "username = '#{params[:username]}'")

Brakeman would produce a warning like this:

Possible SQL injection near line 30: User.first(:conditions => ("username = '#{params[:username]}'"))

The safe way to do this query is to use a parameterized query:

User.first(:conditions => ["username = ?", params[:username]])

Brakeman also understands the new Rails 3.x way of doing things (and local variables and concatenation):

username = params[:user][:name].downcase
password = params[:user][:password]

User.first.where("username = '" + username + "' AND password = '" + password + "'")

This results in this kind of warning:

Possible SQL injection near line 37:
User.first.where((((("username = '" + params[:user][:name].downcase) + "' AND password = '") + params[:user][:password]) + "'"))

See the Ruby Security Guide for more information and Rails-SQLi.org for many examples of SQL injection in Rails.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop checks for code that can be written with simpler conditionals using Object#blank? defined by Active Support.

Interaction with Style/UnlessElse: The configuration of NotPresent will not produce an offense in the context of unless else if Style/UnlessElse is inabled. This is to prevent interference between the auto-correction of the two cops.

Example: NilOrEmpty: true (default)

# Converts usages of `nil? || empty?` to `blank?`

# bad
foo.nil? || foo.empty?
foo == nil || foo.empty?

# good
foo.blank?

Example: NotPresent: true (default)

# Converts usages of `!present?` to `blank?`

# bad
!foo.present?

# good
foo.blank?

Example: UnlessPresent: true (default)

# Converts usages of `unless present?` to `if blank?`

# bad
something unless foo.present?

# good
something if foo.blank?

# bad
unless foo.present?
  something
end

# good
if foo.blank?
  something
end

# good
def blank?
  !present?
end

This cop checks for the use of strings as keys in hashes. The use of symbols is preferred instead.

Example:

# bad
{ 'one' => 1, 'two' => 2, 'three' => 3 }

# good
{ one: 1, two: 2, three: 3 }

This cop checks for the use of strings as keys in hashes. The use of symbols is preferred instead.

Example:

# bad
{ 'one' => 1, 'two' => 2, 'three' => 3 }

# good
{ one: 1, two: 2, three: 3 }

This cop checks for the use of strings as keys in hashes. The use of symbols is preferred instead.

Example:

# bad
{ 'one' => 1, 'two' => 2, 'three' => 3 }

# good
{ one: 1, two: 2, three: 3 }

This cop checks for the use of strings as keys in hashes. The use of symbols is preferred instead.

Example:

# bad
{ 'one' => 1, 'two' => 2, 'three' => 3 }

# good
{ one: 1, two: 2, three: 3 }

This cop checks for the use of strings as keys in hashes. The use of symbols is preferred instead.

Example:

# bad
{ 'one' => 1, 'two' => 2, 'three' => 3 }

# good
{ one: 1, two: 2, three: 3 }

This cop checks for the use of strings as keys in hashes. The use of symbols is preferred instead.

Example:

# bad
{ 'one' => 1, 'two' => 2, 'three' => 3 }

# good
{ one: 1, two: 2, three: 3 }

This cop checks for the use of strings as keys in hashes. The use of symbols is preferred instead.

Example:

# bad
{ 'one' => 1, 'two' => 2, 'three' => 3 }

# good
{ one: 1, two: 2, three: 3 }

This cop checks for the use of strings as keys in hashes. The use of symbols is preferred instead.

Example:

# bad
{ 'one' => 1, 'two' => 2, 'three' => 3 }

# good
{ one: 1, two: 2, three: 3 }

This cop checks for the use of strings as keys in hashes. The use of symbols is preferred instead.

Example:

# bad
{ 'one' => 1, 'two' => 2, 'three' => 3 }

# good
{ one: 1, two: 2, three: 3 }

Checks if uses of quotes match the configured preference.

Example: EnforcedStyle: single_quotes (default)

# bad
"No special symbols"
"No string interpolation"
"Just text"

# good
'No special symbols'
'No string interpolation'
'Just text'
"Wait! What's #{this}!"

Example: EnforcedStyle: double_quotes

# bad
'Just some text'
'No special chars or interpolation'

# good
"Just some text"
"No special chars or interpolation"
"Every string in #{project} uses double_quotes"

This cop checks for the use of Time methods without zone.

Built on top of Ruby on Rails style guide (https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rails-style-guide#time) and the article http://danilenko.org/2012/7/6/rails_timezones/

Two styles are supported for this cop. When EnforcedStyle is 'strict' then only use of Time.zone is allowed.

When EnforcedStyle is 'flexible' then it's also allowed to use Time.intimezone.

Example: EnforcedStyle: strict

# `strict` means that `Time` should be used with `zone`.

# bad
Time.now
Time.parse('2015-03-02 19:05:37')

# bad
Time.current
Time.at(timestamp).in_time_zone

# good
Time.zone.now
Time.zone.parse('2015-03-02 19:05:37')

Example: EnforcedStyle: flexible (default)

# `flexible` allows usage of `in_time_zone` instead of `zone`.

# bad
Time.now
Time.parse('2015-03-02 19:05:37')

# good
Time.zone.now
Time.zone.parse('2015-03-02 19:05:37')

# good
Time.current
Time.at(timestamp).in_time_zone

Checks if uses of quotes match the configured preference.

Example: EnforcedStyle: single_quotes (default)

# bad
"No special symbols"
"No string interpolation"
"Just text"

# good
'No special symbols'
'No string interpolation'
'Just text'
"Wait! What's #{this}!"

Example: EnforcedStyle: double_quotes

# bad
'Just some text'
'No special chars or interpolation'

# good
"Just some text"
"No special chars or interpolation"
"Every string in #{project} uses double_quotes"

This cop checks for the use of Time methods without zone.

Built on top of Ruby on Rails style guide (https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rails-style-guide#time) and the article http://danilenko.org/2012/7/6/rails_timezones/

Two styles are supported for this cop. When EnforcedStyle is 'strict' then only use of Time.zone is allowed.

When EnforcedStyle is 'flexible' then it's also allowed to use Time.intimezone.

Example: EnforcedStyle: strict

# `strict` means that `Time` should be used with `zone`.

# bad
Time.now
Time.parse('2015-03-02 19:05:37')

# bad
Time.current
Time.at(timestamp).in_time_zone

# good
Time.zone.now
Time.zone.parse('2015-03-02 19:05:37')

Example: EnforcedStyle: flexible (default)

# `flexible` allows usage of `in_time_zone` instead of `zone`.

# bad
Time.now
Time.parse('2015-03-02 19:05:37')

# good
Time.zone.now
Time.zone.parse('2015-03-02 19:05:37')

# good
Time.current
Time.at(timestamp).in_time_zone