🔒 보안 취약점 픽스: _download_trusted_uv_archive의 SSRF 방지

[seonghobae]

🎯 What: _RejectTrustedUvRedirects 핸들러가 리디렉션 시 RuntimeError를 발생시켜서 의도한 대로 작동하지 않는 문제가 있었습니다.
⚠️ Risk: 리디렉션을 통한 SSRF(Server-Side Request Forgery) 공격에 취약해질 수 있었습니다.
🛡️ Solution: urllib.error.HTTPError를 명시적으로 발생시켜 리디렉션을 안전하게 차단하도록 수정했습니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 12197747714391184295 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]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 15 minutes

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 87d0cf88-0bff-4db5-9e7c-0b09ab50ee8e

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6eb06cd and 66d91c6.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• scripts/ci/materialize_base_python_requirements.py
• tests/test_uv_redirect_boundary.py

---

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]

RCA/feasibility: closing unmerged as security-misclassified and overlapping with #790. Python's documented HTTPRedirectHandler.redirect_request() contract says a handler that refuses a redirect and does not want another handler to try should raise HTTPError; using HTTPError would therefore be a reasonable API-contract cleanup. But the current implementation raises RuntimeError inside redirect_request before returning any target Request, and the existing regression explicitly exercises a redirect to 127.0.0.1 and proves the handler raises at that boundary. No evidence here shows urllib proceeds with a second request after that exception, so the claimed current SSRF vulnerability is not established. Active #790 owns this exact downloader for the substantive no-proxy/no-redirect, trusted-origin/digest, retry, trusted-Git, and descriptor-publication boundary. If exception normalization to the documented HTTPError contract remains desirable, fold it into the stabilized #790 path with an opener-level zero-second-request regression; do not run a parallel urgent-security lane on the same source.

[google-labs-jules]

RCA/feasibility: closing unmerged as security-misclassified and overlapping with #790. Python's documented HTTPRedirectHandler.redirect_request() contract says a handler that refuses a redirect and does not want another handler to try should raise HTTPError; using HTTPError would therefore be a reasonable API-contract cleanup. But the current implementation raises RuntimeError inside redirect_request before returning any target Request, and the existing regression explicitly exercises a redirect to 127.0.0.1 and proves the handler raises at that boundary. No evidence here shows urllib proceeds with a second request after that exception, so the claimed current SSRF vulnerability is not established. Active #790 owns this exact downloader for the substantive no-proxy/no-redirect, trusted-origin/digest, retry, trusted-Git, and descriptor-publication boundary. If exception normalization to the documented HTTPError contract remains desirable, fold it into the stabilized #790 path with an opener-level zero-second-request regression; do not run a parallel urgent-security lane on the same source.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is now obsolete and stopping work on this task.