employee-dev-9-fix-login-bugs #204
Conversation
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hello @yennanliu, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
Summary of Changes
As gemini-code-assist, I've reviewed this pull request titled 'employee-dev-9-fix-login-bugs'. The primary goal of this PR appears to be addressing issues within the user sign-in process in the backend service. The changes focus on enhancing the security of password verification by hashing the input password before comparison and improving the user experience during sign-in by ensuring a token is always provided, creating one if it doesn't exist.
Highlights
- Secure Password Comparison: The sign-in logic in
UserService.javahas been updated to hash the user's input password using thehashPasswordmethod before comparing it to the stored password. This replaces the direct comparison of the raw input password, which is a significant security improvement. - Token Handling Improvement: The logic for retrieving an authentication token during sign-in has been modified. Previously, if no token existed for a user, an exception was thrown. Now, the code checks if a token exists, and if not, it creates a new
AuthenticationTokenfor the user and saves it, ensuring a token is always returned upon successful sign-in. - Password Hashing Error Handling: A try-catch block has been added around the password hashing operation to handle potential
NoSuchAlgorithmException, providing more robust error handling during the sign-in process.
Changelog
- springEmployeeSystem/backend/EmployeeSystem/src/main/java/EmployeeSystem/service/UserService.java
- Implemented hashing of the input password before comparison during sign-in (lines 90-106).
- Added error handling for
NoSuchAlgorithmExceptionduring password hashing (lines 93-99). - Modified token retrieval logic to create and save a new token if one does not exist for the user upon successful sign-in (lines 114-118).
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Input password comes,
Hash it safe before you check,
Token helps you in.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
The code changes address a login bug by hashing the input password before comparing it with the stored password. This is a good security practice. Additionally, the code now attempts to retrieve an existing authentication token before creating a new one, which can improve performance and reduce unnecessary token generation. Overall, the changes seem well-implemented, but there are a few points to consider.
Summary of Findings
- Password Hashing Security: Ensure that the
hashPasswordmethod uses a strong hashing algorithm (e.g., bcrypt, Argon2) with a salt to prevent rainbow table attacks. - Exception Handling: Consider creating a more specific exception, such as
PasswordHashingException, to provide more context to the caller when password hashing fails. - Logging Enhancement: Add a log message when an existing token is successfully retrieved and used.
- Error Handling: Avoid using
e.printStackTrace()in production code. Rely on the logging framework to record exception details.
Merge Readiness
The code changes address a critical security issue by hashing the input password before comparison. The changes also improve performance by attempting to retrieve existing authentication tokens. However, it's crucial to ensure that the hashPassword method is implemented securely. I recommend addressing the high severity issue related to password hashing security before merging. I am unable to approve this pull request, and other reviewers should review and approve this code before merging.
|
|
||
| // check if password is correct | ||
| if (!user.getPassword().equals(signInDto.getPassword())) { | ||
| if (!user.getPassword().equals(hashedInputPassword)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The original code directly compared the input password with the stored password. This is insecure and should never be done in a production environment. The current implementation correctly hashes the input password before comparison. However, it's crucial to ensure that the hashPassword method uses a strong hashing algorithm (e.g., bcrypt, Argon2) with a salt to prevent rainbow table attacks. Please confirm that the hashPassword method is implemented securely.
| try { | ||
| hashedInputPassword = hashPassword(signInDto.getPassword()); | ||
| } catch (NoSuchAlgorithmException e) { | ||
| e.printStackTrace(); | ||
| log.error("hashing password failed {}", e.getMessage()); | ||
| throw new CustomException("Password hashing failed"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The e.printStackTrace() method should generally be avoided in production code. It prints the stack trace to the console, which might not be desirable or easily accessible. Instead, rely on the logging framework to record the exception details. Consider removing e.printStackTrace() as the log.error call already captures the exception message.
try {
hashedInputPassword = hashPassword(signInDto.getPassword());
} catch (NoSuchAlgorithmException e) {
log.error("hashing password failed {}", e.getMessage());
throw new CustomException("Password hashing failed");
}| } catch (NoSuchAlgorithmException e) { | ||
| e.printStackTrace(); | ||
| log.error("hashing password failed {}", e.getMessage()); | ||
| throw new CustomException("Password hashing failed"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code throws a CustomException when password hashing fails. While this is acceptable, consider creating a more specific exception, such as PasswordHashingException, to provide more context to the caller. This can improve error handling and debugging.
| throw new CustomException("Password hashing failed"); | |
| throw new CustomException("Password hashing failed"); // Consider using a more specific exception like PasswordHashingException |
|
/gemini help |
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback. Regarding your question about the CI failure, I am an AI assistant focused on code review and analysis within the pull request context. I don't have the ability to directly access or debug the CI system to find the specific cause of the failure. However, I can review the code changes in this pull request to see if there are any potential issues that might be contributing to the CI failure. If you can provide more details about the CI error messages or logs, that might help in identifying the problem area within the code. Would you like me to perform a code review ( |
|
/gemini help fix the error in below build: https://github.com/yennanliu/SpringPlayground/actions/runs/15466953978/job/43541188872 |
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback. |
No description provided.