agentleFS
kgrizz-gitkgrizz-git/AgentsConfigHelper/.cursor/rules/codeguard-0-input-validation-injection.mdc

AgentsConfigHelper / rules

Cursor rule2 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Input validation and injection defense (SQL/LDAP/OS), parameterization, prototype pollution

We split this codeguard-0-input-validation-injection.mdc into the rules it gives an agent

14 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈10

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Ensure untrusted input is validated and never interpreted as code.

    line 11
  2. Distinctive:

    Treat all untrusted input as data, never as code.

    line 15
  3. Distinctive:

    Use prepared statements and parameterized queries for 100% of data access.

    line 26
  4. Distinctive:

    Use bind variables for any dynamic SQL construction within stored procedures and never concatenate user input into SQL.

    line 27
  5. Distinctive:

    Prefer least‑privilege DB users and views.

    line 28
  6. Distinctive:

    Always apply context‑appropriate escaping:

    line 41
  7. Distinctive:

    Use least‑privilege LDAP connections with bind authentication.

    line 45
  8. Very specific:

    Prefer built‑in APIs instead of shelling out (e.g., library calls over exec).

    line 48
  9. Distinctive:

    If unavoidable, use structured execution that separates command and arguments (e.g., ProcessBuilder).

    line 49
  10. Very specific:

    Use -- to delimit arguments where supported to prevent option injection.

    line 51
  11. Distinctive:

    Use the platform’s parameterization features (JDBC PreparedStatement, .NET SqlCommand, Ruby ActiveRecord bind params, PHP PDO, SQLx bind, …

    line 62
  12. Very specific:

    When objects are required, create with Object.create(null) or { __proto__: null } to avoid inherited prototypes.

    line 67
  13. Very specific:

    Avoid unsafe deep merge utilities.

    line 69
  14. Distinctive:

    No shell invocation for untrusted input.

    line 78

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 6,350 Cursor rule files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
codeguard-0-input-validation-injection.mdc
---
description: Input validation and injection defense (SQL/LDAP/OS), parameterization, prototype pollution
globs: **/*.bash,**/*.c,**/*.ddl,**/*.dml,**/*.go,**/*.h,**/*.htm,**/*.html,**/*.java,**/*.js,**/*.jsx,**/*.mjs,**/*.php,**/*.ps1,**/*.py,**/*.pyi,**/*.pyx,**/*.rb,**/*.sh,**/*.sql,**/*.ts,**/*.tsx
version: 1.0.1
---

rule_id: codeguard-0-input-validation-injection

## Input Validation & Injection Defense

Ensure untrusted input is validated and never interpreted as code. Prevent injection across SQL, LDAP, OS commands, templating, and JavaScript runtime object graphs.

### Core Strategy
- Validate early at trust boundaries with positive (allow‑list) validation and canonicalization.
- Treat all untrusted input as data, never as code. Use safe APIs that separate code from data.
- Parameterize queries/commands; escape only as last resort and context‑specific.

### Validation Playbook
- Syntactic validation: enforce format, type, ranges, and lengths for each field.
- Semantic validation: enforce business rules (e.g., start ≤ end date, enum allow‑lists).
- Normalization: canonicalize encodings before validation; validate complete strings (regex anchors ^$); beware ReDoS.
- Free‑form text: define character class allow‑lists; normalize Unicode; set length bounds.
- Files: validate by content type (magic), size caps, and safe extensions; server‑generate filenames; scan; store outside web root.

### SQL Injection Prevention
- Use prepared statements and parameterized queries for 100% of data access.
- Use bind variables for any dynamic SQL construction within stored procedures and never concatenate user input into SQL.
- Prefer least‑privilege DB users and views; never grant admin to app accounts.
- Escaping is fragile and discouraged; parameterization is the primary defense.

Example (Java PreparedStatement):
```java
String custname = request.getParameter("customerName");
String query = "SELECT account_balance FROM user_data WHERE user_name = ? ";
PreparedStatement pstmt = connection.prepareStatement( query );
pstmt.setString( 1, custname);
ResultSet results = pstmt.executeQuery( );
```

### LDAP Injection Prevention
- Always apply context‑appropriate escaping:
  - DN escaping for `\ # + < > , ; " =` and leading/trailing spaces
  - Filter escaping for `* ( ) \ NUL`
- Validate inputs with allow‑lists before constructing queries; use libraries that provide DN/filter encoders.
- Use least‑privilege LDAP connections with bind authentication; avoid anonymous binds for application queries.

### OS Command Injection Defense
- Prefer built‑in APIs instead of shelling out (e.g., library calls over `exec`).
- If unavoidable, use structured execution that separates command and arguments (e.g., ProcessBuilder). Do not invoke shells.
- Strictly allow‑list commands and validate arguments with allow‑list regex; exclude metacharacters (& | ; $ > < ` \ ! ' " ( ) and whitespace as needed).
- Use `--` to delimit arguments where supported to prevent option injection.

Example (Java ProcessBuilder):
```java
ProcessBuilder pb = new ProcessBuilder("TrustedCmd", "Arg1", "Arg2");
Map<String,String> env = pb.environment();
pb.directory(new File("TrustedDir"));
Process p = pb.start();
```

### Query Parameterization Guidance
- Use the platform’s parameterization features (JDBC PreparedStatement, .NET SqlCommand, Ruby ActiveRecord bind params, PHP PDO, SQLx bind, etc.).
- For stored procedures, ensure parameters are bound; never build dynamic SQL via string concatenation inside procedures.

### Prototype Pollution (JavaScript)
- Developers should use `new Set()` or `new Map()` instead of using object literals
- When objects are required, create with `Object.create(null)` or `{ __proto__: null }` to avoid inherited prototypes.
- Freeze or seal objects that should be immutable; consider Node `--disable-proto=delete` as defense‑in‑depth.
- Avoid unsafe deep merge utilities; validate keys against allow‑lists and block `__proto__`, `constructor`, `prototype`.

### Caching and Transport
- Apply `Cache-Control: no-store` on responses containing sensitive data; enforce HTTPS across data flows.

### Implementation Checklist
- Central validators: types, ranges, lengths, enums; canonicalization before checks.
- 100% parameterization coverage for SQL; dynamic identifiers via allow‑lists only.
- LDAP DN/filter escaping in use; inputs validated prior to query.
- No shell invocation for untrusted input; if unavoidable, structured exec + allow‑list + regex validation.
- JS object graph hardened: safe constructors, blocked prototype paths, safe merge utilities.
- File uploads validated by content, size, and extension; stored outside web root and scanned.

### Test Plan
- Static checks for string concatenation in queries/commands and dangerous DOM/merge sinks.
- Fuzzing for SQL/LDAP/OS injection vectors; unit tests for validator edge cases.
- Negative tests exercising blocked prototype keys and deep merge behavior.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.