Secure memory: Yay or nay
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
- Lingua principale
- JavaScript
- Stelle
- 122k
- Fork
- 37.3k
- Merge medio
- 4g 2h
- PR unite (30g)
- 283
Descrizione
OpenSSL has support for a concept that is referred to as secure memory or secure heap. Essentially, every time OpenSSL allocates memory, it indicates whether that memory should be allocated from the "normal" heap using malloc or from the "secure" heap. Allocations on the secure heap usually have the following security properties:
- Allocated memory is never swapped to the disk and never included in core dumps, making it less likely to leak sensitive information through those.
- Allocated memory is always overwritten on deallocation, also making it less likely to leak information.
- It is far more difficult to use buffer overflows to retrieve data from these allocations. (OpenSSL causes the process to terminate if memory surrounding secure allocations is accessed.)
Node.js does not use this feature, meaning that OpenSSL performs normal allocations. (OpenSSL still overwrites the memory on deallocation.) We can enable OpenSSL's implementation, but it is quite restrictive and will be difficult to configure for users of Node.js. The alternative is to provide a more suitable implementation within Node.js, which provides similar security properties while being easier to use and less restrictive. However, that requires:
- Upstream changes to OpenSSL's memory management, in order to allow overriding the built-in secure memory implementation. I have talked to some of the maintainers, and they would likely accept such changes.
- The actual secure heap implementation in Node.js. That is not super difficult, but the implementation is platform-specific and will not be easy to test.
I started working on this approach about a year ago, and never finished it. I got varying feedback at the Montreal summit, so let's discuss this in public before I either stop working on it or put in a lot more work. As someone pointed out, many cloud applications likely don't care about this level of security.
Even if we upstream the necessary changes in OpenSSL, it is unlikely to ever work with a shared OpenSSL library, so dynamic linking would disable the feature. Also, I don't want to break Electron (as I have done numerous times, sorry @codebytere!), so we would need to make sure to either propose the change to both OpenSSL and BoringSSL or to make it easy to opt out of the feature at compile time.
I also have a patch that solves https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/18896, but relies on this particular feature, and is super dangerous to use.
Guida per i contributori
Apri la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Direzione di ricerca
Inizia dalla discussione sul secure heap di OpenSSL e dalla issue collegata #18896; qui non sono indicati file del repository né test. Per considerarlo completato, sarebbe necessario concordare prima l’ambito per Node.js, la compatibilità con OpenSSL/BoringSSL, il comportamento della piattaforma e la possibilità di disattivazione in fase di compilazione, prima di poter definire il lavoro di implementazione.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Valutazione
- Stack tecnologico
- node.js
- Ambito
- security
- Tipo di issue
- Funzionalità
- Difficoltà
- 5/5
- Tempo stimato
- Più di una settimana
- Stato di attività
- Tranquilla
- Chiarezza
- Da chiarire
- Idoneità per principianti
- 25/100