elitmus/omniauth-elitmus

Advisory: CVE-2015-9284

Criticality: High

URL: https://github.com/omniauth/omniauth/wiki/Resolving-CVE-2015-9284

Solution: upgrade to >= 2.0.0

Advisory: CVE-2020-8161

Criticality: High

URL: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ruby-security-ann/T4ZIsfRf2eA

Solution: upgrade to ~> 2.1.3, >= 2.2.0

Advisory: CVE-2020-8184

Criticality: High

URL: https://groups.google.com/g/rubyonrails-security/c/OWtmozPH9Ak

Solution: upgrade to ~> 2.1.4, >= 2.2.3

Advisory: CVE-2020-36599

Criticality: Critical

URL: https://github.com/omniauth/omniauth/commit/43a396f181ef7d0ed2ec8291c939c95e3ed3ff00#diff-575abda9deb9b1a77bf534e898a923029b9a61e991d626db88dc6e8b34260aa2

Solution: upgrade to ~> 1.9.2, >= 2.0.0

Advisory: CVE-2020-10663

Criticality: High

URL: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2020/03/19/json-dos-cve-2020-10663/

Solution: upgrade to >= 2.3.0

Advisory: CVE-2019-16782

Criticality: Medium

URL: https://github.com/rack/rack/security/advisories/GHSA-hrqr-hxpp-chr3

Solution: upgrade to ~> 1.6.12, >= 2.0.8

Feature Envy occurs when a code fragment references another object more often than it references itself, or when several clients do the same series of manipulations on a particular type of object.

Feature Envy reduces the code's ability to communicate intent: code that "belongs" on one class but which is located in another can be hard to find, and may upset the "System of Names" in the host class.

Feature Envy also affects the design's flexibility: A code fragment that is in the wrong class creates couplings that may not be natural within the application's domain, and creates a loss of cohesion in the unwilling host class.

Feature Envy often arises because it must manipulate other objects (usually its arguments) to get them into a useful form, and one force preventing them (the arguments) doing this themselves is that the common knowledge lives outside the arguments, or the arguments are of too basic a type to justify extending that type. Therefore there must be something which 'knows' about the contents or purposes of the arguments. That thing would have to be more than just a basic type, because the basic types are either containers which don't know about their contents, or they are single objects which can't capture their relationship with their fellows of the same type. So, this thing with the extra knowledge should be reified into a class, and the utility method will most likely belong there.

Example

Running Reek on:

class Warehouse
  def sale_price(item)
    (item.price - item.rebate) * @vat
  end
end

would report:

Warehouse#total_price refers to item more than self (FeatureEnvy)

since this:

(item.price - item.rebate)

belongs to the Item class, not the Warehouse.

Advisory: CVE-2018-16471

URL: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ruby-security-ann/NAalCee8n6o

Solution: upgrade to ~> 1.6.11, >= 2.0.6

Advisory: CVE-2022-30123

Criticality: Critical

URL: https://groups.google.com/g/ruby-security-ann/c/LWB10kWzag8

Solution: upgrade to >= 2.0.9.1, ~> 2.0.9, >= 2.1.4.1, ~> 2.1.4, >= 2.2.3.1

Advisory: CVE-2022-44571

URL: https://github.com/rack/rack/releases/tag/v3.0.4.1

Solution: upgrade to >= 2.0.9.2, ~> 2.0.9, >= 2.1.4.2, ~> 2.1.4, >= 2.2.6.1, ~> 2.2.6, >= 3.0.4.1

Advisory: CVE-2020-8130

Criticality: High

URL: https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-jppv-gw3r-w3q8

Solution: upgrade to >= 12.3.3

Advisory: CVE-2022-44572

URL: https://github.com/rack/rack/releases/tag/v3.0.4.1

Solution: upgrade to >= 2.0.9.2, ~> 2.0.9, >= 2.1.4.2, ~> 2.1.4, >= 2.2.6.1, ~> 2.2.6, >= 3.0.4.1

Advisory: CVE-2018-16470

URL: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ruby-security-ann/Dz4sRl-ktKk

Solution: upgrade to >= 2.0.6

Advisory: CVE-2022-44570

URL: https://github.com/rack/rack/releases/tag/v3.0.4.1

Solution: upgrade to >= 2.0.9.2, ~> 2.0.9, >= 2.1.4.2, ~> 2.1.4, >= 2.2.6.2, ~> 2.2.6, >= 3.0.4.1

Advisory: CVE-2022-30122

Criticality: High

URL: https://groups.google.com/g/ruby-security-ann/c/L2Axto442qk

Solution: upgrade to >= 2.0.9.1, ~> 2.0.9, >= 2.1.4.1, ~> 2.1.4, >= 2.2.3.1

Feature Envy occurs when a code fragment references another object more often than it references itself, or when several clients do the same series of manipulations on a particular type of object.

Feature Envy reduces the code's ability to communicate intent: code that "belongs" on one class but which is located in another can be hard to find, and may upset the "System of Names" in the host class.

Feature Envy also affects the design's flexibility: A code fragment that is in the wrong class creates couplings that may not be natural within the application's domain, and creates a loss of cohesion in the unwilling host class.

Feature Envy often arises because it must manipulate other objects (usually its arguments) to get them into a useful form, and one force preventing them (the arguments) doing this themselves is that the common knowledge lives outside the arguments, or the arguments are of too basic a type to justify extending that type. Therefore there must be something which 'knows' about the contents or purposes of the arguments. That thing would have to be more than just a basic type, because the basic types are either containers which don't know about their contents, or they are single objects which can't capture their relationship with their fellows of the same type. So, this thing with the extra knowledge should be reified into a class, and the utility method will most likely belong there.

Example

Running Reek on:

class Warehouse
  def sale_price(item)
    (item.price - item.rebate) * @vat
  end
end

would report:

Warehouse#total_price refers to item more than self (FeatureEnvy)

since this:

(item.price - item.rebate)

belongs to the Item class, not the Warehouse.

Classes and modules are the units of reuse and release. It is therefore considered good practice to annotate every class and module with a brief comment outlining its responsibilities.

Example

Given

class Dummy
  # Do things...
end

Reek would emit the following warning:

test.rb -- 1 warning:
  [1]:Dummy has no descriptive comment (IrresponsibleModule)

Fixing this is simple - just an explaining comment:

# The Dummy class is responsible for ...
class Dummy
  # Do things...
end

Reek reports a Manual Dispatch smell if it finds source code that manually checks whether an object responds to a method before that method is called. Manual dispatch is a type of Simulated Polymorphism which leads to code that is harder to reason about, debug, and refactor.

Example

class MyManualDispatcher
  attr_reader :foo

  def initialize(foo)
    @foo = foo
  end

  def call
    foo.bar if foo.respond_to?(:bar)
  end
end

Reek would emit the following warning:

test.rb -- 1 warning:
  [9]: MyManualDispatcher manually dispatches method call (ManualDispatch)

Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.

Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.

Example

Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:

def double_thing()
  @other.thing + @other.thing
end

One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:

def double_thing()
  thing = @other.thing
  thing + thing
end

A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing by calls to @other.double_thing:

class Other
  def double_thing()
    thing + thing
  end
end

The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.

A NilCheck is a type check. Failures of NilCheck violate the "tell, don't ask" principle.

Additionally, type checks often mask bigger problems in your source code like not using OOP and / or polymorphism when you should.

Example

Given

class Klass
  def nil_checker(argument)
    if argument.nil?
      puts "argument isn't nil!"
    end
  end
end

Reek would emit the following warning:

test.rb -- 1 warning:
  [3]:Klass#nil_checker performs a nil-check. (NilCheck)