> This PR adds explicit [permissions 
> section](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#permissions)
>  to workflows. This is a security best practice because by default workflows 
> run with [extended set of 
> permissions](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/security-guides/automatic-token-authentication#permissions-for-the-github_token)
>  (except from `on: pull_request` [from external 
> forks](https://securitylab.github.com/research/github-actions-preventing-pwn-requests/)).
>  By specifying any permission explicitly all others are set to none. By using 
> the principle of least privilege the damage a compromised workflow can do 
> (because of an 
> [injection](https://securitylab.github.com/research/github-actions-untrusted-input/)
>  or compromised third party tool or action) is restricted.
> It is recommended to have [most strict permissions on the top 
> level](https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/blob/main/docs/checks.md#token-permissions)
>  and grant write permissions on [job 
> level](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-jobs/assigning-permissions-to-jobs)
>  case by case.

Alex has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a 
rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the 
merge/rebase. The pull request contains two additional commits since the last 
revision:

 - Merge branch 'master' into patch-1
 - Update submit.yml
   
   Signed-off-by: sashashura <93376818+sashash...@users.noreply.github.com>

-------------

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/889/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/889/files/ae6132c2..20840ce8

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jfx&pr=889&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jfx&pr=889&range=00-01

  Stats: 306 lines in 8 files changed: 295 ins; 4 del; 7 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/889.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jfx pull/889/head:pull/889

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/889

Reply via email to