神刀安全网

The npm Meltdown Uncovers Serious Security Risks

For context, here’s a recap of the events leading up to the short-lived npm install issues earlier this week.

From there, dozens of articles and tweets about the event were dispatched. Some questioned Kik’s claim to ownership of the kik package name. Some questioned Azer’s retaliation causing more damage to the community than to Kik. Some questioned npm for allowing a user to un-break the ecosystem by re-publishing an unpublished and fully open-source package. Some questioned npm for allowing users to npm unpublish in the first place. Some questioned npm for defending their interests over Azer’s and giving up ownership of kik .

The root cause of all of the above is, of course, trust . And it runs deep. In this article I want to go over the implications and hopefully trigger a constructive discussion around the topic.

Trust Issues

A few hours ago, a discussion started on npm/npm#12045 about whether we should trust npm . Trusting npm as a company is beside the point, though. A more important question is whether we can trust what people publish on npm .

Can we trust package authors?

There are about Infinity possible security risks posed by an npm package author “going rogue”, having his account compromised, or even making a mistake. Let’s enumerate a few scenarios where if "a package author decided to ${action} " would result in pain and suffering for the ecosystem as a whole.

  • Unpublish a popular module preventing their dependants, and their dependants’ dependants from ever being installed again unless npm chimed in
  • Include a postinstall script such as rf -rf /
  • Include a postinstall script such as npm unpublish
  • Include a postinstall script that allows for remote code execution
  • Publish a semver patch version containing a bug that makes the package unusable

Even if we make npm unpublish harder or even impossible , the community’s reliance on semver means that we would still be exposed to multiple other vulnerabilities, that may well fly under our radars, and that could be introduced at any point in time by a bad actor such as a rogue package author or someone taking over the account of a popular package holder.

The vast majority of npm users are benevolent, though. This is why semver mostly works.

Trusting package authors mostly works. Until it doesn’t.

Thus, we came up with techniques such as npm shrinkwrap or simply bundling your dependencies on npm publish so that we can trust a snapshot of what package authors produce, and not all of it. How is doing that any different than getting rid of semver, something that has been posited in the past without gaining much traction ?

Again, semver mostly works, so we’re reluctant to not rely on it. There is value to semver, though.

The Fix: Bundling Before Publishing

Bundling on publish means we take advantage of our dependencies being semantically versioned during development, but that we won’t allow ourselves to publish a package that may mutate over time. At the same time, installs will be faster because we won’t be relying on npm to resolve a bunch of dependencies. This is basically what Rich argues in his Medium article , and partly what I’ve argued in my article about semver .

Does bundling on publish mean our dependants lose the ability to take advantage of semver?

No.

Semantic Versioning Can Still Help us During Development

Not allowing semantic versioning to leak through the entire dependency tree is the healthy approach to take here .

This is no different to Browserify having transforms run only at the local package level: the package author knows what transforms are best for their package, but they don’t really know their dependencies, or whether something will break at some point by running those transforms on a global scale. The author of dependencies can’t foresee every possible transform that’d be run against their code, so Browserify compromises on defaulting to local transforms. Semantic versioning is the same thing, but it’s lacking a sensible default.

Then there’s the issue of code duplication, but that’s a story for another day. I’ll take code duplication over fear of bringing services down any day. When it comes to front-end development, code duplication should be taken seriously, though, and npm is probably the best place where we can come up with a solution to that problem.

Immutability, Predictability, and a Possibly-Service-Provided Solution

Another take on fixing this issue would be having an immutable version of npm , let’s call it ipm . In this scenario, we’d keep semver for local development but there’d be a twist: anything ever published to ipm would remain on ipm forever. Unpublishing would only be possible through a DMCA process. At the time of publishing an [email protected]

package, ipm would take care of computing all dependencies for [email protected] , respecting semver throughout the dependency graph, and bundling them together with the published [email protected] package. When [email protected] is installed, the exact same content would be downloaded every time . There wouldn’t be any need for package authors to take on the obnoxious task of bundling things together, because the ipm

service would take care of that for them. The service should also be smart enough to bundle packages in such a way that code duplication is reduced to a minimum.

A service like ipm , when widely adopted by the community, would accomplish two things.

First, situations such as a package author unpublishing a popular module and causing imp install to fail across the board would be avoided by preventing user-powered unpublishing entirely. If a DMCA notice or similar legal reason were to trigger the take-down of the doge package from the registry, then things that depended on doge would remain unaffected because doge was previously bundled into their dependants. Similarly, if a malicious user decided to introduce a postinstall vulnerability, it would only affect development environments and those who decide to update their doge dependency without verifying its integrity through one of those monitoring solutions which ensure packages on npm don’t go rogue.

Trusting others is the foundation of our community, but everyone can make mistakes and some can go rogue. We can’t rely on trust alone.

Second, and perhaps even most importantly, it’d introduce predictability, something we’ve been sorely missing lately in the grand scheme of all things web development. By staying immutable at the source, ipm would allow intermediary services such as Travis – as well as npm end users – to heavily cache those immutable packages that are known never to change. Even if development versions take full advantage of (one level deep) semver ranges, each package downloaded with ipm install would be a never-changing bundle. Installation time would also significantly go down, even when the bundles aren’t cached, ipm would have pre-computed all the necessary files for each dependency, no more tree-deep request-fests! The npm Meltdown Uncovers Serious Security Risks

Predictability shouldn’t be as undervalued as it is today.

If anything, predictability speeds up our development and deployment processes. At its best, it prevents mistakes that stem from “lazy developers not bundling their code before deployment for every single package they create ever” . Of course, I disagree with the notion of lazy developers – that’s an oxymoron. But, as the lazy developers we strive to be, this problem should be resolved at the source, and not at the individual community contributor level. It’s far too important an issue for each individual to be expected to take responsibility. The service needs to step up.

转载本站任何文章请注明:转载至神刀安全网,谢谢神刀安全网 » The npm Meltdown Uncovers Serious Security Risks

分享到:更多 ()

评论 抢沙发

  • 昵称 (必填)
  • 邮箱 (必填)
  • 网址
分享按钮