[1.0.x] URL Access Control

Thank you for applying!

Please read Review process for security advisory coverage: What to expect → for more details and Security advisory coverage application checklist → to understand what reviewers look for. Tips for ensuring a smooth review → gives some hints for a smoother review.

The important notes are the following.

• If you have not done it yet, you should run phpcs --standard=Drupal,DrupalPractice on the project, which alone fixes most of what reviewers would report.
• For the time this application is open, only your commits are allowed.
• The purpose of this application is giving you a new drupal.org role that allows you to opt projects into security advisory coverage, either projects you already created, or projects you will create. The project status won't be changed by this application and no other user will be able to opt projects into security advisory policy.
• We only accept an application per user. If you change your mind about the project to use for this application, or it is necessary to use a different project for the application, please update the issue summary with the link to the correct project and the issue title with the project name and the branch to review.

To the reviewers

Please read How to review security advisory coverage applications → , Application workflow → , What to cover in an application review → , and Tools to use for reviews → .

The important notes are the following.

• It is preferable to wait for a Code Review Administrator before commenting on newly created applications. Code Review Administrators will do some preliminary checks that are necessary before any change on the project files is suggested.
• Reviewers should show the output of a CLI tool → only once per application.
• It may be best to have the applicant fix things before further review.

For new reviewers, I would also suggest to first read In which way the issue queue for coverage applications is different from other project queues → .

1. FILE: url_access_control.info.yml

package: Custom

This line is used by custom modules created for specific sites. It is not a package name used for projects hosted on drupal.org.

2. FILE: url_access_control.module

/**
 * @file
 * Primary module hooks for URL access control module.
 */

Drupal does not have primary and secondary hooks. Instead of that, it is preferable to use the usual description: Hook implementations for the [module name] module. where [module name] is the name of the module given in its .info.yml file.

3. FILE: url_access_control.install

You can remove this empty file if you are not planning to add any code in the future.

Hi @vishal.kadam thank you for the review and help. We will fix all these issue in next release.

Thank You.

Hi @praveen rani Please go through comment #3 for understating review process. No need to wait for next release you can fix issue in 1.0.x. Reviewer will review code from branch 1.0.x.

Hi @vishal.kadam and @Rushikesh Raval,

I have made changes to the following files in the same branch 1.0.x. Please review:

1. FILE: url_access_control.info.yml and
2. FILE: url_access_control.module have been updated.
3. FILE: url_access_control.install has been removed.

@praveen rani You removed the module description from the `url_access_control.module` file instead of updating it.

Hi @vishal.kadam, I have added module description in url_access_control.module file. Please review it.

Thank You.

Remember to change status, when the project is ready to be reviewed. In this queue, projects are only reviewed when the status is Needs review.

I have some concerns about this security advisory coverage application. I will not do a detailed code review here because I think some conceptual questions should be clarified for this module first. Every module that touches on access control should do so with proper care. Additionally, user expectations should be managed well because one may assume that the module does more than it does.

1. 1. The user may assume that when access to a URL is blocked, the content is not accessible. This is certainly not true because content may be reachable through another URL, e.g., via path alias. The configuration form may be a good place to communicate this.
2. 2. The KernelEvents::REQUEST event listener fires quite late. There are probably multiple ways this can go wrong where a language negotiator or path alias manager redirects the user before.
3. 3. The access control is not enforced when the `referer` header is set. But this header could be manipulated.
4. 4. The configuration form does not properly validate the entered URLs. Also, I guess that paths are expected here. But then, even the module name does not fit anymore.

I would advise against enabling security coverage for this module until the conceptual flaws are remediated.