Skip to content

Feature request: additional meta tags #67

Open

Description

@kerrymilan
  • Add a {todo} tag. This tag should not display in the rendered report, but should be used to indicate in the review status or report overview page that the section requires attention.
  • Add tags for {findings.criticalCount} and {findings.highCount} for use in summary sections. Optionally scope to a specific finding group or finding type.

Activity

  1. thejohnbrown commented on Jan 9, 2023

    @thejohnbrown
    Contributor

    Hi @kerrymilan,

    I have started working on this over here: thejohnbrown@129cc1a (branch: https://github.com/thejohnbrown/writehat/tree/additional-meta-tags). I have so far implemented new tags for cvss and dread (total, info, low, medium, high and critical), proactive total and grand total per severity.

    I'm trying to think of a good way to approach tags for individual finding groups at the moment. I was hoping to build the user_context dictionary dynamically based on the name of the finding group however as we can have duplicate finding group names this isn't possible. Any thoughts? My only idea so far is just numbering the groups 1, 2, 3, etc. and then accessing them through a tag like findings.1.criticalTotal.

  2. thejohnbrown commented on Jan 11, 2023

    @thejohnbrown
    Contributor

    I've implemented scoping to finding groups over here https://github.com/thejohnbrown/writehat/tree/additional-meta-tags. I approached this how I said above, giving each finding group inside the engagement a sequential ID starting from 1 according to the order they appear on the engagement overview page. For example if you had 3 finding groups and wanted to get a total count of the vulnerabilities in finding group 2, you would use the meta tag { findings.group.2.totalcount }. I haven't implemented the TODO meta tag but the second bullet point is done so i'm happy to make a PR.

  3. thejohnbrown commented on May 23, 2023

    @thejohnbrown
    Contributor

    Any update on this?

  4. TMDeal commented on May 25, 2023

    @TMDeal
    Collaborator

    yo, just got around to taking a look at your implementation. I have been wanting this feature for quite some time, so I would love to get a pull request going.

    The main thing I noticed was that When there are no findings of a specific type or severity, it should default to a 0 value rather than being nothing, as can be seen in the following screenshot

    default_should_be_0

  5. thejohnbrown commented on May 30, 2023

    @thejohnbrown
    Contributor

    Good point. I'll make that change and create a PR this week.

  6. thejohnbrown commented on Jun 1, 2023

    @thejohnbrown
    Contributor

    I have made a PR here #93. The issue with it not displaying '0' has also been fixed.

    If you're wondering why the branch name is different it's because I had to create a new one as git did some weird stuff.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions