←back to thread

Deno 2.4

(deno.com)
133 points hackandthink | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
bflesch ◴[] No.44488699[source]
Big fan of deno, congrats on shipping.

From a security standpoint it really icks me when projects prominently ask their users to do the `curl mywebsite.com/foo.sh | sh` thing. I know risk acceptance is different for many people, but if you download a file before executing it, at least you or your antivirus can check what it actually does.

As supply chain attacks are a significant security risks for a node/deno stack application, the `curl | sh` is a red flag that signals to me that the author of the website prefers convenience over security.

With a curl request directly executed, this can happen:

- the web server behind mywebsite.com/foo.sh provides malware for the first request from your IP, but when you request it again it will show a different, clean file without any code

- MITM attack gives you a different file than others receive

Node/deno applications using the npm ecosystem put a lot of blind trust into npm servers, which are hosted by microsoft, and therefore easily MITM'able by government agencies.

When looking at official docs for deno at https://docs.deno.com/runtime/getting_started/installation/ the second option behind `curl | sh` they're offering is the much more secure `npm install -g deno`. Here at least some file integrity checks and basic malware scanning are done by npm when downloading and installing the package.

Even though deno has excellent programmers working on the main project, the deno.land website might not always be as secure as the main codebase.

Just my two cents, I know it's a slippery slope in terms of security risk but I cannot say that `curl | sh` is good practice.

replies(10): >>44488723 #>>44488744 #>>44488758 #>>44488836 #>>44489041 #>>44489128 #>>44489256 #>>44489488 #>>44489530 #>>44489730 #
bugtodiffer ◴[] No.44488758[source]
using deno isn't good security practice, their sandbox is implemented like stuff from the 90s
replies(3): >>44488797 #>>44488852 #>>44488903 #
1. homebrewer ◴[] No.44488852[source]
If you're writing server stuff, at the coarse-grained level of isolation that Deno provides you're better off using just about anything else and restricting access to network/disks/etc through systemd. Unlike Deno, it can restrict access to specific filesystem paths and network addresses (whitelist/blacklist, your choice), and you're not locked into using just Deno and not forced to write JS/TS.

See `man systemd.exec`, `systemd-analyze security`, https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Systemd/Sandboxing

replies(3): >>44489232 #>>44489298 #>>44489306 #
2. crabmusket ◴[] No.44489232[source]
Deno can restrict access to filesystem files or directories, and to particular network domains, see docs for examples. https://docs.deno.com/runtime/fundamentals/security/#file-sy...

However in general I don't think Deno's permission system is all that amazing, and I am annoyed that people call it "capability-based" sometimes (I don't know if this came from the Deno team ever or just misinformed third parties).

I do like that "deno run https://example.com/arbitrary.js" has a minimum level of security by default, and I can e.g. restrict it to read and write my current working dir. It's just less helpful for combining components of varying trust levels into a single application.

3. vorticalbox ◴[] No.44489298[source]
> Unlike Deno, it can restrict access to specific filesystem paths and network addresses

deno can do this via --(allow/deny)-read and --(allow/deny)-write for the file system.

You can do the same for net too

https://docs.deno.com/runtime/fundamentals/security/#permiss...

4. mk12 ◴[] No.44489306[source]
Bubblewrap is another convenient sandboxing tool for Linux: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bubblewrap