-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.6k
node: warn for Object.prototype.__* accessors common in security warnings #39824
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 5 commits
813dd33
c49435f
fd4e664
bc2ef67
05ef3f2
9f266d6
301d5ea
9198ad2
04fbd18
083c842
308eb0e
c55d04a
741f229
4b73dde
bd37bbc
07faa4b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -2801,7 +2801,30 @@ non-number value for `hints` option, a non-nullish non-boolean value for `all` | |
option, or a non-nullish non-boolean value for `verbatim` option in | ||
[`dns.lookup()`][] and [`dnsPromises.lookup()`][] is deprecated. | ||
|
||
### DEP0154: `Object.prototype` Legacy Accessors | ||
<!-- YAML | ||
changes: | ||
- version: REPLACEME | ||
pr-url: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/39824 | ||
description: Runtime deprecation. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
Type: Runtime | ||
|
||
Accessors on `Object.prototype` are subject to object traversal attacks and | ||
cause concerns for security audits. A variety of these are considered deprecated | ||
bmeck marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
by the [Legacy Object.prototype Accessor Methods][] by the JS standard. Modern | ||
bmeck marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
replacements are `Object.defineProperty`, `Object.getPrototypeOf`, and | ||
`Object.setPrototypeOf` and not subject to path traversal. This affects: | ||
|
||
* `Object.prototype.__defineGetter__` | ||
* `Object.prototype.__defineSetter__` | ||
* `Object.prototype.__lookupGetter__` | ||
* `Object.prototype.__lookupSetter__` | ||
* `Object.prototype.__proto__` | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I get that There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Right – that’s what (I also don’t think putting this behind There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Well, I would say that throwing exceptions definitely lets you do that :) In any case, to be clear I’m not -1 on this per se, I just think that this is a big change and we should call it out very explicitly. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Throwing alters behavior, so maybe --disable-proto could get a warning mode that lets programs run and you fix it when you see it rather than taking down a process potentially? Seems fine to have whole blog posts before this and waiting for a major to me on this PR. Since this affects legacy codebases as well it will likely also take some effort to PR things. We could also add a flag to re-add the accessors if we ever do remove them for people needing to run legacy code. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I mean – yes, throwing alters behavior, but practically speaking, people will notice whether they are using
Yeah, I think in the long run that might be a good idea – just remove the accessors, but add a flag to add them for those who really need them. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Too bad that There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. On the other hand, |
||
|
||
[Legacy URL API]: url.md#url_legacy_url_api | ||
[Legacy Object.prototype Accessor Methods]: https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-object.prototype-legacy-accessor-methods | ||
[NIST SP 800-38D]: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-38d.pdf | ||
[RFC 6066]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6066#section-3 | ||
[WHATWG URL API]: url.md#url_the_whatwg_url_api | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@@ -3,10 +3,13 @@ | |||||
const { | ||||||
NumberParseInt, | ||||||
ObjectDefineProperty, | ||||||
ObjectGetOwnPropertyDescriptor, | ||||||
ObjectPrototype, | ||||||
SafeMap, | ||||||
SafeWeakMap, | ||||||
StringPrototypeStartsWith, | ||||||
globalThis, | ||||||
uncurryThis, | ||||||
} = primordials; | ||||||
|
||||||
const { | ||||||
|
@@ -332,6 +335,60 @@ function initializeDeprecations() { | |||||
enumerable: false, | ||||||
configurable: true | ||||||
}); | ||||||
|
||||||
let warnedForProto = false; | ||||||
function warnOnProto() { | ||||||
if (!warnedForProto) { | ||||||
warnedForProto = true; | ||||||
process.emitWarning('usage of Object.prototype.__* properties are a' + | ||||||
bmeck marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
' common security concern, use static methods on Object instead'); | ||||||
} | ||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Perhaps we should make these proper runtime deprecations? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm not opposed, is it just adding to the docs a new number to get the DEP###? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. added to DEP doc, idk if there is a process to do instead There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Look for other DEP codes in the code and you'll see how those are emitted :-) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Example: Lines 28 to 29 in e46c680
As soon as this is changed to emit a deprecation warning, I'll launch a CITGM run with There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. this seems difficult to wrangle without giving a unique DEP id to each accessor given the other feedback of giving more actionable feedback in #39824 (comment) |
||||||
} | ||||||
const legacy = [ | ||||||
'__proto__', | ||||||
bmeck marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||
'__defineGetter__', | ||||||
'__defineSetter__', | ||||||
'__lookupGetter__', | ||||||
'__lookupSetter__', | ||||||
]; | ||||||
for (let i = 0; i < legacy.length; i++) { | ||||||
const prop = legacy[i]; | ||||||
const protoDescriptor = ObjectGetOwnPropertyDescriptor( | ||||||
ObjectPrototype, | ||||||
prop); | ||||||
if (protoDescriptor && 'value' in protoDescriptor) { | ||||||
let value = protoDescriptor.value; | ||||||
const writable = protoDescriptor.writable; | ||||||
ObjectDefineProperty(ObjectPrototype, legacy[i], { | ||||||
get() { | ||||||
warnOnProto(); | ||||||
return value; | ||||||
}, | ||||||
set(v) { | ||||||
warnOnProto(); | ||||||
if (!writable) return; | ||||||
value = v; | ||||||
}, | ||||||
enumerable: false, | ||||||
configurable: true | ||||||
}); | ||||||
} else { | ||||||
const getter = uncurryThis(protoDescriptor.get); | ||||||
const setter = uncurryThis(protoDescriptor.set); | ||||||
ObjectDefineProperty(ObjectPrototype, legacy[i], { | ||||||
get() { | ||||||
warnOnProto(); | ||||||
return getter(this); | ||||||
}, | ||||||
set(value) { | ||||||
warnOnProto(); | ||||||
setter(this, value); | ||||||
}, | ||||||
enumerable: false, | ||||||
configurable: true | ||||||
}); | ||||||
} | ||||||
} | ||||||
} | ||||||
|
||||||
function setupChildProcessIpcChannel() { | ||||||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ | ||
'use strict'; | ||
|
||
const common = require('../common'); | ||
|
||
process.on('warning', common.mustCall()); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There is a There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. done, but it seems |
||
|
||
const obj = {}; | ||
// eslint-disable-next-line | ||
const _ = obj.__proto__; | ||
// eslint-disable-next-line | ||
obj.__proto__ = null; |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.