[StepSecurity] Apply security best practices

[step-security-bot]

Summary

This pull request is created by StepSecurity at the request of @RafaelGSS. Please merge the Pull Request to incorporate the requested changes. Please tag @RafaelGSS on your message if you have any questions related to the PR.

Security Fixes

Detect Vulnerabilities with SAST Workflow

Static Code Analysis (also known as Source Code Analysis) is usually performed as part of a Code Review (also known as clear-box testing) and is carried out at the Implementation phase of a Security Development Lifecycle (SDL). Static Code Analysis commonly refers to the running of Static Code Analysis tools that attempt to highlight possible vulnerabilities within ‘static’ (non-running) source code by using techniques such as Taint Analysis and Data Flow Analysis.

• The Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) Security Guide
• OWASP Static Code Analysis
• Github Guide For Code Scanning

Add Dependency Review Workflow

The Dependency Review Workflow enforces dependency reviews on your pull requests. The action scans for vulnerable versions of dependencies introduced by package version changes in pull requests, and warns you about the associated security vulnerabilities. This gives you better visibility of what's changing in a pull request, and helps prevent vulnerabilities being added to your repository.

• Github Guide about Dependency Review
• Github Guide for Configuring Dependency Review Action

Feedback

For bug reports, feature requests, and general feedback; please email support@stepsecurity.io. To create such PRs, please visit https://app.stepsecurity.io/securerepo.

Signed-off-by: StepSecurity Bot bot@stepsecurity.io

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/actions

[RafaelGSS]

As discussed in the last security meeting, LGTM.

Waiting for @nodejs/security-wg feedback before landing it.

[github-advanced-security]

This pull request sets up GitHub code scanning for this repository. Once the scans have completed and the checks have passed, the analysis results for this pull request branch will appear on this overview. Once you merge this pull request, the 'Security' tab will show more code scanning analysis results (for example, for the default branch). Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results. For more information about GitHub code scanning, check out the documentation.

[targos]

The run generates a warning:

1 issue was detected with this workflow: CodeQL language 'javascript' is referenced by more than one entry in the 'language' matrix parameter for job 'analyze'. This may result in duplicate alerts. Please edit the 'language' matrix parameter to keep only one of the following: 'javascript', 'typescript'.

[targos]

Blocking because I don't want us to introduce a mandatory workflow that takes more than one hour on every PR.

[RafaelGSS]

Blocking because I don't want us to introduce a mandatory workflow that takes more than one hour on every PR.

Do you mean the dependency-review? Just want to make sure I understand to discuss this in the next security-wg meeting.

[targos]

No, I mean the CodeQL (cpp). It's still running here after 1h32min: https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/13927045256/job/38974215974?pr=57535

[RafaelGSS]

@targos We discussed it in today's security-wg meeting, and a feasible option would be changing this workflow to run on a nightly (once per day) basis and not blocking any PR until we have trust in this workflow run. The security team can take action to review the runs and make sure things are working as expected.

How does it sound to you?

[metcoder95]

@targos We discussed it in today's security-wg meeting, and a feasible option would be changing this workflow to run on a nightly (once per day) basis and not blocking any PR until we have trust in this workflow run. The security team can take action to review the runs and make sure things are working as expected.

As part of this split effort, is there an option to consider the possibility of splitting the c++ workflow, so we can use the manual build mode to build cache around and maybe speed up things? (if we see value on keeping the workflow).

Ref: https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/code-scanning/creating-an-advanced-setup-for-code-scanning/codeql-code-scanning-for-compiled-languages

[targos]

Sounds good to me. My concern is about avoiding friction for regular pull requests.

[RafaelGSS]

Closing in favour of #57788