created ruby test slop by SergUdo · Pull Request #9 · SergUdo/slop_test

SergUdo · 2026-02-15T18:19:14Z

No description provided.

github-actions · 2026-02-15T18:19:39Z

🚨 AI Slop Gate Report

Status: FAIL
Summary: Verdict: BLOCKING. Found 30 issues.

📑 Detailed Observations

hardcoded_secrets

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L23: [hardcoded_secrets] Hardcoded secret found in app.rb

rce_via_yaml

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L43: [rce_via_yaml] RCE via YAML.load found in app.rb

eval_injection

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L51: [eval_injection] Eval injection found in app.rb

command_injection

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L59: [command_injection] Command injection found in app.rb

sql_injection

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L67: [sql_injection] SQL injection found in app.rb

insecure_crypto

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L75: [insecure_crypto] Insecure crypto found in app.rb

insecure_http

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L83: [insecure_http] Insecure HTTP found in app.rb

mass_assignment

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L91: [mass_assignment] Mass assignment found in app.rb

predictable_token

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L34: [predictable_token] Predictable token found in enterprise_silent_slop.rb

timing_attack

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L42: [timing_attack] Timing attack vulnerability found in enterprise_silent_slop.rb

static_iv

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L54: [static_iv] Static IV found in enterprise_silent_slop.rb

no_tls_validation

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L74: [no_tls_validation] No TLS validation found in enterprise_silent_slop.rb

fallback_enables_admin

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L94: [fallback_enables_admin] Fallback enables admin found in enterprise_silent_slop.rb

reversible_transformation

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L106: [reversible_transformation] Reversible transformation found in enterprise_silent_slop.rb

logs_sensitive_data

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L118: [logs_sensitive_data] Logs sensitive data found in enterprise_silent_slop.rb

allows_mutation

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L130: [allows_mutation] Allows mutation found in enterprise_silent_slop.rb

predictable_default_key

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L144: [predictable_default_key] Predictable default key found in enterprise_silent_slop.rb

derived_from_static_key

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L152: [derived_from_static_key] Derived from static key found in enterprise_silent_slop.rb

insecure_deserialization

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L43: [insecure_deserialization] Insecure deserialization found in slop_ruby.rb

unsafe_eval

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L53: [unsafe_eval] Unsafe eval found in slop_ruby.rb

hardcoded_credentials

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L123: [hardcoded_credentials] Hardcoded credentials found in slop_ruby.rb

sql_injection_style_logic

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L129: [sql_injection_style_logic] SQL injection style logic found in slop_ruby.rb

memory_leak

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L141: [memory_leak] Memory leak found in slop_ruby.rb

overengineered_code

[WARNING] in PR_9 L1: [overengineered_code] Overengineered code found in slop.py
[WARNING] in PR_9 L1: [overengineered_code] Overengineered code found in slop.js

todo_comment

[WARNING] in PR_9 L47: [todo_comment] TODO comment found in slop.py
[WARNING] in PR_9 L44: [todo_comment] TODO comment found in slop.js

contradictory_policy

[WARNING] in PR_9 L1: [contradictory_policy] Contradictory policy found in .github/workflows/analyze.yml

inconsistent_configuration

[WARNING] in PR_9 L1: [inconsistent_configuration] Inconsistent configuration found in Gemfile
[WARNING] in PR_9 L1: [inconsistent_configuration] Inconsistent configuration found in Gemfile.lock

Reported by AI Slop Gate

github-actions · 2026-02-15T18:19:40Z

🤖 AI Slop Gate LLM Analysis

The LLM-based analysis detected policy violations.

github-actions · 2026-02-15T18:37:31Z

✅ AI Slop Gate Compliance Analysis

Status: PASSED - No Issues Found
Findings: issue(s) detected

📚 How to fix violations

License Violations (GPL/AGPL)

Remove the dependency or find an alternative with a permissive license
If the dependency is necessary, consult with legal team
Add to .trivyignore only if approved by compliance team

Data Residency Violations

Ensure all endpoints use EU regions
Update configuration to use eu-west-1, eu-central-1, etc.
Remove references to US/AP regions

_{🤖 Powered by AI Slop Gate | Run: 22040952014}

github-actions · 2026-02-15T18:41:11Z

🚨 AI Slop Gate Report

Status: FAIL
Summary: Verdict: BLOCKING. Found 64 issues.

📑 Detailed Observations

unstable_docker_image_tag

[WARNING] in PR_9 L26: [unstable_docker_image_tag] The Docker image ghcr.io/sergudo/ai-slop-gate:latest uses the ':latest' tag, which is mutable and can lead to non-reproducible builds and unexpected behavior. It's recommended to pin to a specific version or digest.

todo_comment

[WARNING] in PR_9 L18: [todo_comment] A TODO comment indicates incomplete work or a pending change that should be addressed.
[WARNING] in PR_9 L32: [todo_comment] A TODO comment indicates incomplete work or a pending change that should be addressed.
[WARNING] in PR_9 L42: [todo_comment] A TODO comment indicates incomplete work or a pending change that should be addressed.

forbidden_license_declaration

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L1: [forbidden_license_declaration] The Gemfile explicitly states 'GPL-3.0 License (FORBIDDEN)' as a comment. This indicates a direct violation of a declared policy, creating an architectural risk and potential legal/compliance issues.

end_of_life_ruby

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L4: [end_of_life_ruby] The project specifies Ruby version '2.3.0', which is End-of-Life (EOL). EOL software receives no security updates, making the application highly vulnerable to known and future exploits.

known_vulnerable_gem

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L7: [known_vulnerable_gem] The 'rails' gem version '4.2.0' is known to have multiple critical vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE-2015-7576, CVE-2016-6316). Using vulnerable dependencies is a severe security risk.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L8: [known_vulnerable_gem] The 'rack' gem version '1.6.0' is known to have vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE-2018-16470). Using vulnerable dependencies is a severe security risk.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L9: [known_vulnerable_gem] The 'nokogiri' gem version '1.6.6' is known to have vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE-2017-9050). Using vulnerable dependencies is a severe security risk.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L10: [known_vulnerable_gem] The '' gem version '1.8.1' is known to have vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE-2020-10663). Using vulnerable dependencies is a severe security risk.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L11: [known_vulnerable_gem] The 'devise' gem version '3.2.4' is known to have multiple vulnerabilities. Using vulnerable dependencies is a severe security risk.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L12: [known_vulnerable_gem] The 'rest-client' gem version '1.6.7' is known to have vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE-2015-1820). Using vulnerable dependencies is a severe security risk.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L13: [known_vulnerable_gem] The 'webrick' gem version '1.3.1' is known to have vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE-2020-25613). Using vulnerable dependencies is a severe security risk.

outdated_bundler_version

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L11: [outdated_bundler_version] The Gemfile.lock indicates it was bundled with Bundler version '2.6.3'. This is an old version, which might lead to dependency resolution issues or indicate an unmaintained environment, contributing to overall system fragility.

explicitly_insecure_design

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L3: [explicitly_insecure_design] The file is explicitly labeled 'Intentionally insecure enterprise compliance module' and lists various critical vulnerabilities it contains. This design choice itself is an architectural flaw in any real-world production context.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L3: [explicitly_insecure_design] The file is explicitly labeled 'WARNING: This file intentionally contains security violations, slop, CVE patterns and bad practices.' This design choice itself is an architectural flaw in any real-world production context.

license_mismatch

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L2: [license_mismatch] The file's license is declared as GPL-3.0, which contradicts the 'FORBIDDEN' directive noted in Gemfile, indicating a severe architectural mismatch and potential compliance issue.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L6: [license_mismatch] The file's license is declared as GPL-3.0, which contradicts the 'FORBIDDEN' directive noted in Gemfile, indicating a severe architectural mismatch and potential compliance issue.

hardcoded_master_key

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L20: [hardcoded_master_key] A critical master key 'SUPER_SECRET_PRODUCTION_KEY_123456' is hardcoded directly in the source code, posing an immediate and severe security risk.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L21: [hardcoded_master_key] A critical master key @@master_key = "hardcoded-super-secret-master-key" is hardcoded directly in the source code, posing an immediate and severe security risk.

hardcoded_aws_secret_key

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L21: [hardcoded_aws_secret_key] An AWS Secret Access Key 'AKIAIOSFODNN7EXAMPLE' is hardcoded in the source code. While an example, in a real application, this is a severe security vulnerability.

hardcoded_rsa_private_key

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L22: [hardcoded_rsa_private_key] A private RSA key is hardcoded directly in the source code, representing a critical security vulnerability.

dangerous_debug_default

[WARNING] in PR_9 L34: [dangerous_debug_default] The @debug instance variable is initialized to true by default. While appropriate for testing, this could lead to sensitive information disclosure or degraded performance in a production environment if not explicitly set to false.

rce_yaml_load

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L38: [rce_yaml_load] The YAML.load(payload) method is used, which is known to be vulnerable to Remote Code Execution (RCE) via insecure deserialization (CVE-2013-0156 pattern).
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L36: [rce_yaml_load] The YAML.load(payload) method is used, which is known to be vulnerable to Remote Code Execution (RCE) via insecure deserialization (CVE-2013-0156 pattern).

eval_injection

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L43: [eval_injection] The eval(code) method is used to execute dynamic code, which is a severe eval injection vulnerability allowing arbitrary code execution.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L44: [eval_injection] The eval(code) method is used to execute dynamic code, which is a severe eval injection vulnerability allowing arbitrary code execution.

command_injection

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L48: [command_injection] The system("echo #{user_input}") call is vulnerable to command injection, allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary shell commands.

sql_injection

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L54: [sql_injection] The DB.execute("SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = '#{username}'") query is vulnerable to SQL injection because the username parameter is directly interpolated into the SQL string.

insecure_crypto_static_iv

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L60: [insecure_crypto_static_iv] The insecure_encrypt method uses a static Initialization Vector (IV) for AES-128-CBC encryption. Using a static IV significantly weakens the cryptographic security, making it vulnerable to attacks.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L44: [insecure_crypto_static_iv] The encrypt_payload method uses a static Initialization Vector (IV) ("0" * 16) for AES-256-CBC encryption. This is a severe cryptographic flaw making the encryption highly vulnerable to attacks.

insecure_crypto_bad_key_derivation

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L59: [insecure_crypto_bad_key_derivation] The encryption key is derived from a hardcoded master key (MASTER_KEY[0..15]), making it predictable and highly insecure.

insecure_http_usage

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L67: [insecure_http_usage] The fetch_policy method uses plain HTTP (http://example.com) instead of HTTPS, exposing data to eavesdropping and tampering. It also lacks TLS validation implicitly.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L54: [insecure_http_usage] The process_compliance_payload method uses plain HTTP (http://example.com) instead of HTTPS, exposing data to eavesdropping and tampering. It also lacks TLS validation implicitly.

mass_assignment_vulnerability

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L71: [mass_assignment_vulnerability] The update_config method uses instance_variable_set with arbitrary input keys (params.each do |k,v| instance_variable_set("@#{k}", v)). This is a mass assignment vulnerability, allowing an attacker to modify internal object state, potentially bypassing security controls or corrupting data.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L99: [mass_assignment_vulnerability] The apply_runtime_patch method uses instance_variable_set with arbitrary input keys (params.each do |k, v| instance_variable_set("@#{k}", v)). This is a mass assignment vulnerability, allowing an attacker to modify internal object state, potentially bypassing security controls or corrupting data.

ai_slop_meaningless_logic

[WARNING] in PR_9 L77: [ai_slop_meaningless_logic] The deep_enterprise_compliance_scan method contains 'AI slop' with superficial, keyword-based compliance checks and random data generation, making it appear complex but ultimately pointless for actual compliance.
[WARNING] in PR_9 L86: [ai_slop_meaningless_logic] The scan_for_cves method is described as 'Fake CVE scanner with nonsense logic' and performs superficial string include? checks rather than actual vulnerability scanning, indicative of 'AI slop'.

test_code_in_production_module

[WARNING] in PR_9 L95: [test_code_in_production_module] The if __FILE__ == $0 block contains extensive test-like code demonstrating vulnerabilities. While useful for testing, including such blocks in a 'module' intended for production indicates architectural sloppiness and could lead to accidental execution or inflate the codebase.

mutable_global_state

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L15: [mutable_global_state] The TOKEN_CACHE = {} class variable is a mutable global state. This introduces potential race conditions, makes testing difficult, and can lead to unexpected side effects across the application.

dangerous_audit_default

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L14: [dangerous_audit_default] The INTERNAL_AUDIT_MODE is set to true by default, which, in conjunction with the audit_log function, means sensitive data will be logged by default. This is a dangerous configuration for production environments.

predictable_default_key

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L139: [predictable_default_key] The default_key method returns a hardcoded, predictable key ('enterprise-default-key'), making encryption and authentication reliant on a well-known secret across environments.

weak_token_generation_no_salt

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L28: [weak_token_generation_no_salt] The issue_token method generates tokens using SHA256 but without a salt or key stretching. This makes tokens predictable and vulnerable to rainbow table attacks or brute-forcing if the encryption key is compromised.

timing_attack_vulnerability

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L35: [timing_attack_vulnerability] The verify_token method uses a simple string comparison (expected == provided) for token validation. This is vulnerable to timing attacks, where an attacker can deduce information based on the time taken for comparison.

insecure_crypto_no_authentication

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L40: [insecure_crypto_no_authentication] The encrypt_payload method performs encryption (AES-CBC) but lacks message authentication (e.g., HMAC, GCM). This means encrypted data can be tampered with undetected.

tls_verification_disabled

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L56: [tls_verification_disabled] The fetch_remote_policy method explicitly disables TLS certificate verification (http.verify_mode = OpenSSL::SSL::VERIFY_NONE). This makes the application vulnerable to Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attacks when fetching remote policies.

broad_exception_rescue

[WARNING] in PR_9 L63: [broad_exception_rescue] The fetch_remote_policy method uses a broad rescue {} block. This suppresses all exceptions, making debugging extremely difficult and potentially hiding critical issues during network requests.
[WARNING] in PR_9 L61: [broad_exception_rescue] The encrypted = ... rescue "encryption-failed" block uses a broad rescue that catches and suppresses all exceptions during encryption, potentially hiding critical failures.

dangerous_feature_flag_default

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L70: [dangerous_feature_flag_default] The feature_enabled? method has a dangerous default (@feature_flags.fetch(feature, true)), implicitly enabling features if not explicitly configured. It also has a hardcoded admin bypass (return true if user_role == :admin), potentially granting unintended access.

misleading_anonymization

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L78: [misleading_anonymization] The anonymize_email method uses Base64.encode64(email.reverse), which is a simple reversible transformation, not true anonymization. This is misleading and fails to protect sensitive data as implied by the method name.

logging_sensitive_data

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L86: [logging_sensitive_data] The audit_log method logs the entire TOKEN_CACHE (token_cache: TOKEN_CACHE), which contains sensitive tokens. With INTERNAL_AUDIT_MODE being true by default, this leads to widespread exposure of active tokens.
[FAILURE] in PR_9 L127: [logging_sensitive_data] The log method appends messages to @@audit_trail (mutable global state) and prints to console. Combined with @debug_mode being true by default and the context, this indicates logging of potentially sensitive data without proper control.

cryptographically_weak_hash_md5

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L147: [cryptographically_weak_hash_md5] The internal_auth_header method uses MD5 (Digest::MD5.hexdigest) for an authentication header. MD5 is cryptographically broken and unsuitable for security purposes due to collision vulnerabilities.

private_method_accessed_externally

[WARNING] in PR_9 L40: [private_method_accessed_externally] The _log private method of HyperConfigurableManager is accessed directly from the overengineered_sum function. While technically possible in Python, this breaks encapsulation and can make the class harder to maintain or refactor.

discarded_return_value

[WARNING] in PR_9 L43: [discarded_return_value] The result of manager.dump_debug() is assigned to _, effectively discarding its value. If the debug information is critical, it should be utilized. If not, the call might be unnecessary, indicating overengineering.

mutable_global_class_state

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L19: [mutable_global_class_state] The @@global_cache and @@audit_trail class variables are mutable global state. This introduces potential race conditions, memory leaks, makes testing difficult, and violates good architectural principles.

dangerous_default_configuration

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L26: [dangerous_default_configuration] The @debug_mode and @unsafe_mode instance variables are initialized to true by default. These dangerous defaults could lead to sensitive information disclosure, degraded performance, or active vulnerabilities in a production environment.

massive_method_bloat

[WARNING] in PR_9 L31: [massive_method_bloat] The process_compliance_payload method is excessively large and combines numerous distinct, insecure, and contradictory operations. This indicates 'AI slop' through over-generalization and violates single responsibility principles.

contradictory_logic

[WARNING] in PR_9 L50: [contradictory_logic] The code explicitly warns about a 'Forbidden license detected' but then states 'but continuing anyway...'. This contradictory logic demonstrates 'AI slop' and indicates a broken architectural assumption or lack of enforcement.

insecure_crypto_bad_key_handling

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L60: [insecure_crypto_bad_key_handling] The encryption key is derived from a hardcoded master key (@@master_key[0..15]), making it predictable and highly insecure.

ai_slop_overengineered_pointless

[WARNING] in PR_9 L105: [ai_slop_overengineered_pointless] The generate_fake_audit_report method is explicitly described as 'Extremely overengineered and pointless logic', generating random scores and arbitrary fields. This is 'AI slop'.

hardcoded_credentials

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L134: [hardcoded_credentials] The authenticate method contains hardcoded credentials (admin/admin123), which is a severe security vulnerability.

sql_injection_simulation

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L137: [sql_injection_simulation] The authenticate method simulates a SQL injection bypass (username.include?("' OR 1=1 --")), demonstrating a critical vulnerability pattern.

memory_leak_pattern

[FAILURE] in PR_9 L145: [memory_leak_pattern] The append_user_input method repeatedly appends to @user_input_buffer (input.to_s * 1000), which is a classic memory leak pattern that can exhaust system resources over time.

Reported by AI Slop Gate

github-actions · 2026-02-15T18:41:15Z

🚨 AI Slop Gate LLM GEMINI Analysis

The LLM-based analysis detected policy violations.

github-actions · 2026-02-15T18:44:58Z

✅ AI Slop Gate Compliance Analysis

Status: PASSED - No Issues Found
Findings: issue(s) detected

📚 How to fix violations

License Violations (GPL/AGPL)

Remove the dependency or find an alternative with a permissive license
If the dependency is necessary, consult with legal team
Add to .trivyignore only if approved by compliance team

Data Residency Violations

Ensure all endpoints use EU regions
Update configuration to use eu-west-1, eu-central-1, etc.
Remove references to US/AP regions

_{🤖 Powered by AI Slop Gate | Run: 22041058736}

created ruby test slop

5eefc8f

github-actions bot added the slop-detected AI Slop detected label Feb 15, 2026

SergUdo added 2 commits February 15, 2026 19:28

test workfow compliance

d70329a

updated test workfow compliance

f41859d

test workfow gemini

6a1171f

test updated workfow compliance

5d50528

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

created ruby test slop#9

created ruby test slop#9
SergUdo wants to merge 5 commits intomainfrom
slop-ruby

SergUdo commented Feb 15, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 15, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 15, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 15, 2026

License Violations (GPL/AGPL)

Data Residency Violations

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 15, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 15, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 15, 2026

License Violations (GPL/AGPL)

Data Residency Violations

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

Conversation

SergUdo commented Feb 15, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 15, 2026

🚨 AI Slop Gate Report

📑 Detailed Observations

hardcoded_secrets

rce_via_yaml

eval_injection

command_injection

sql_injection

insecure_crypto

insecure_http

mass_assignment

predictable_token

timing_attack

static_iv

no_tls_validation

fallback_enables_admin

reversible_transformation

logs_sensitive_data

allows_mutation

predictable_default_key

derived_from_static_key

insecure_deserialization

unsafe_eval

hardcoded_credentials

sql_injection_style_logic

memory_leak

overengineered_code

todo_comment

contradictory_policy

inconsistent_configuration

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 15, 2026

🤖 AI Slop Gate LLM Analysis

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 15, 2026

✅ AI Slop Gate Compliance Analysis

License Violations (GPL/AGPL)

Data Residency Violations

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 15, 2026

🚨 AI Slop Gate Report

📑 Detailed Observations

unstable_docker_image_tag

todo_comment

forbidden_license_declaration

end_of_life_ruby

known_vulnerable_gem

outdated_bundler_version

explicitly_insecure_design

license_mismatch

hardcoded_master_key

hardcoded_aws_secret_key

hardcoded_rsa_private_key

dangerous_debug_default

rce_yaml_load

eval_injection

command_injection

sql_injection

insecure_crypto_static_iv

insecure_crypto_bad_key_derivation

insecure_http_usage

mass_assignment_vulnerability

ai_slop_meaningless_logic

test_code_in_production_module

mutable_global_state

dangerous_audit_default

predictable_default_key

weak_token_generation_no_salt

timing_attack_vulnerability

insecure_crypto_no_authentication

tls_verification_disabled

broad_exception_rescue

dangerous_feature_flag_default

misleading_anonymization

logging_sensitive_data

cryptographically_weak_hash_md5

private_method_accessed_externally