Skip to content

Add support for "Wont fix" retest status - #166

Open
Synchro wants to merge 3 commits into
radicallyopensecurity:mainfrom
Synchro:wontfix
Open

Add support for "Wont fix" retest status#166
Synchro wants to merge 3 commits into
radicallyopensecurity:mainfrom
Synchro:wontfix

Conversation

@Synchro

@Synchro Synchro commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

It doesn't really fit into any of the other categories.

While I was doing this I also added support for using the same "pretty" status names that are used in findings in the summary tables too.

I also cleaned up some of the code a bit as it was hard to read in places – it could do with reformatting properly!

gronke
gronke previously approved these changes Aug 13, 2026

@gronke gronke left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes LGTM.

I typically use a won't fix label and leave the re-test status on unresolved. Should risk acceptance not be done by the client internally, not reflect as status? Or is reflecting a vendor response as re-test status intentional?

@Synchro

Synchro commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I think it's workable for both parties. We could recharacterise it as accepted? I think unresolved doesn't really convey the fact that the matter is closed as far as they are concerned, and it's indistinguishable from something that they have not done anything about, which is what led me to do this.

I know there is some support for labels, but whenever I use them it makes my IDE show lots of XML validity warnings, so I'm not too comfortable with them.

@gronke

gronke commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

and it's indistinguishable from something that they have not done anything about, which is what led me to do this.

In this case I typically set a won't fix label, which represents the vendor's remark having no intention to fix is. The goal of that label is to signal that, which is important information, but I would rather close a false-positive. Though all cases that come to my mind now are exclusively refusals by a vendor. As a pentester I don't feel entitled to approve risk acceptance, and the recommendation in the finding either stand (or the finding should be closed).

@Synchro

Synchro commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Fair enough. I set up the commits so the formatting clean up and pretty labels in summary tables should be cherry-pickable, though there might be a little overlap.

@Synchro

Synchro commented Aug 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I've changed the status value to accepted_risk in line with comments here and in ROS chat. I think this reflects a slightly less passive-aggressive stance than "won't fix", but also addressing the fact that accepting a finding or otherwise explicitly deciding to do nothing is a fairly common resolution, which is what made unresolved unsatisfactory for me.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants