-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.9k
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
node: warn for Object.prototype.__* accessors common in security warnings #39824
Open
bmeck
wants to merge
16
commits into
nodejs:main
Choose a base branch
from
bmeck:warn-on-proto-accessor
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
16 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
813dd33
node: warn accessors common in security warnings
bmeck c49435f
linter
bmeck fd4e664
Update lib/internal/bootstrap/pre_execution.js
bmeck bc2ef67
DEP
bmeck 05ef3f2
DEP meta
bmeck 9f266d6
Update doc/api/deprecations.md
bmeck 301d5ea
fix nits
bmeck 9198ad2
oops, define correct prop name
bmeck 04fbd18
cleanup
bmeck 083c842
Update test/parallel/test-object-proto-accessor-warning.js
bmeck 308eb0e
linter
bmeck c55d04a
fix refactor regression
bmeck 741f229
pendingDeprecation
bmeck 4b73dde
test needs flag
bmeck bd37bbc
Update doc/api/deprecations.md
bmeck 07faa4b
Apply suggestions from code review
bmeck File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ | ||
// Flags: --pending-deprecation | ||
'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; |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I get that
__proto__
is annoying, but it’s also widely used (which is why I had excluded it from #39576 as well). Runtime-deprecating that is a big breaking change.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
__proto__
is the main problem for CVEs regarding prototype pollution, it is the most important to figure out how to address. I am not arguing popularity or utility, just that the API is problematic in practice.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right – that’s what
--disable-proto
is for, no? Anyway, if we do this, it should be communicated very clearly to users.(I also don’t think putting this behind
--pending-deprecation
is particularly useful, given that there already is a flag to opt-out of this behavior. If we do make the decision to runtime-deprecate fully eventually, then I guess that decision can also be made now.)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
--disable-proto
is a bit different, it doesn't let you see that something is using__proto__
so you can fix it. It just removes it or makes it throw; also it is opt-in so the ecosystem noise is just permanent since it doesn't actually cause any sort of signal that security warning isn't a false positive.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The 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 comment
The 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 comment
The 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
__proto__
with either method, which is the point here anyw2ay.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 comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Too bad that
--disable-proto=log
wasn't an option ?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On the other hand,
--disable-proto=throw
during development should spot all issues (if using a package lock).