You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
What would you like to be added:
Right now we only have --false-positive=", "
The problem with this only idea is that for example I have a Bandit scanner and for rule ID B324 (that is insecure hashing) as a security analyst I want to whitelist it, I need to add all 'n' number of occurrences and 'n' number of hashes in the false positive flag.
Instead, there should be a feature to add rule IDs to the whitelist, OR I should be able to pass tool-level config files so that I can pass my skip argument to the bandit scanner.
Why is this needed:
This makes the whole whitelisting process a hell lot of easier. While keeping the hash level whitelisting for a granular level of tracking, a wider scope whitelisting approach should also be an option for some who want to use it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
What would you like to be added:
Right now we only have --false-positive=", "
The problem with this only idea is that for example I have a Bandit scanner and for rule ID B324 (that is insecure hashing) as a security analyst I want to whitelist it, I need to add all 'n' number of occurrences and 'n' number of hashes in the false positive flag.
Instead, there should be a feature to add rule IDs to the whitelist, OR I should be able to pass tool-level config files so that I can pass my skip argument to the bandit scanner.
Why is this needed:
This makes the whole whitelisting process a hell lot of easier. While keeping the hash level whitelisting for a granular level of tracking, a wider scope whitelisting approach should also be an option for some who want to use it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: