elixir-security-review

Elixir Security Review

Quick Reference

Issue Type	Reference
Code.eval_string, binary_to_term	references/code-injection.md
String.to_atom dangers	references/atom-exhaustion.md
Config, environment variables	references/secrets.md
ETS visibility, process dictionary	references/process-exposure.md

Review Checklist

Critical (Block Merge)

• No Code.eval_string/1 on user input
• No :erlang.binary_to_term/1 without :safe on untrusted data
• No String.to_atom/1 on external input
• No hardcoded secrets in source code

Major

• ETS tables use appropriate access controls
• No sensitive data in process dictionary
• No dynamic module creation from user input
• Path traversal prevented in file operations

Configuration

• Secrets loaded from environment
• No secrets in config/*.exs committed to git
• Runtime config used for deployment secrets

Valid Patterns (Do NOT Flag)

• String.to_atom on compile-time constants - Atoms created at compile time are safe
• Code.eval_string in dev/test - May be needed for tooling
• ETS :public tables - Valid when intentionally shared
• binary_to_term with :safe - Explicitly safe option used

Context-Sensitive Rules

Issue	Flag ONLY IF
String.to_atom	Input comes from external source (user, API, file)
binary_to_term	Data comes from untrusted source
ETS :public	Contains sensitive data

Hard gates (before reporting)

Complete in order for each finding you intend to report. Do not advance until the pass condition is satisfied.

1. Location artifact — The finding includes [FILE:LINE] (or a line range) that you copied from the current file contents; the path resolves in this repo.
2. Scope read — You read the full surrounding function or module section that contains the flagged code, not only a diff hunk or summary.
3. External-data claim (only if the finding depends on “user/untrusted input”) — You can name one concrete ingress (for example conn.params, Jason.decode!/1 result, uploaded file path, message from another node) or you drop the finding because the value is compile-time, test-only, or internal per Context-Sensitive Rules.
4. Protocol — Pre-report steps in review-verification-protocol are satisfied for this item (no finding if they are not).

Before Submitting Findings

Use the issue format: [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE for each finding.

Hard gate 4 requires review-verification-protocol; use it as the full pre-report checklist and issue-type verification (it extends beyond this skill’s summary).