Paul Hodgkinson
Paul Hodgkinson
Their length in characters is: * SHA1: 40 * SHA224: 56 * SHA256: 64 * SHA512: 128 So their regex are: * SHA1: `[A-Fa-f0-9]{40}` * SHA224: `[A-Fa-f0-9]{56}` * SHA256: `[A-Fa-f0-9]{64}`...
This fails to compile: ``` WARNING: string is incompatible with PathNode (the type of the edge relation). (/home/runner/work/codeql-queries/codeql-queries/java/CWE-798/HardcodedBase64Usage.ql:39,32-68) WARNING: A path-problem query must select a string representing the message as...
Great questions. I'm envisaging teams who write new Perl code or who manage existing Perl code and want to improve its quality and security. Open source Perl projects could benefit...
I’ll get on with help, docs and switching to `JSON::PP`, then see about tests
I did take a look at this, and a check over GitHub Code Search with the regex revealed the potential for false positives, even without deeper testing. Could you tighten...
@mattkim if you've got time to take a look at the requested changes I asked for then I can look at retesting and merging the pattern
The simplest before/after pair would be `\A|[^0-9-]` and `\z|[^0-9-]`. To deal with possible FPs it might make sense to extend it to `\A|[^0-9A-Za-z-]` and `\z|[^0-9A-Za-z-]`.
We need to mark the Grafana pattern as deprecated
There's no way to distinguish different 'MD' patterns based on their hex pattern
A regex for these is: ``` [A-Fa-f0-9]{32} ``` with a before pattern of `\A|[^A-Fa-f0-9]` and an after pattern of `\z|[^A-Fa-f0-9]`