-
-
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 12 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. | ||
|
||
### DEP0XXX: `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 | ||
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 |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ | ||
'use strict'; | ||
|
||
const common = require('../common'); | ||
|
||
common.expectWarning( | ||
'DeprecationWarning', | ||
'__proto__ is deprecated, use Object.getPrototypeOf instead', 'DEP0XXX'); | ||
|
||
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.