←back to thread

27 points roggenbuck | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

I wanted a safer alternative to RegExp for TypeScript that uses a linear-time engine, so I built Regolith.

Why: Many CVEs happen because TypeScript libraries are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service attacks. I learned about this problem while doing undergraduate research and found that languages like Rust have built-in protection but languages like JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python do not. This library attempts to mitigate these vulnerabilities for TypeScript and JavaScript.

How: Regolith uses Rust's Regex library under the hood to prevent ReDoS attacks. The Rust Regex library implements a linear-time Regex engine that guarantees linear complexity for execution. A ReDoS attack occurs when a malicious input is provided that causes a normal Regex engine to check for a matching string in too many overlapping configurations. This causes the engine to take an extremely long time to compute the Regex, which could cause latency or downtime for a service. By designing the engine to take at most a linear amount of time, we can prevent these attacks at the library level and have software inherit these safety properties.

I'm really fascinated by making programming languages safer and I would love to hear any feedback on how to improve this project. I'll try to answer all questions posted in the comments.

Thanks! - Jake Roggenbuck

Show context
semiquaver ◴[] No.45035198[source]

  > Regolith attempts to be a drop-in replacement for RegExp and requires minimal (to no) changes to be used instead
vs

  > Since Regolith uses Rust bindings to implement the Rust Regex library to achieve linear time worst case, this means that backreferences and look-around aren't available in Regolith either.
Obviously it cannot be a drop-in replacement if the regex dialect differs. That it has a compatible API is not the only relevant factor. I’d recommend removing the top part from the readme.

Another thought: since backreferences and lookaround are the features in JS regexes which _cause_ ReDOS, why not just wrap vanilla JS regex, rejecting patterns including them? Wouldn’t that achieve the same result in a simpler way?

replies(4): >>45035253 #>>45035264 #>>45035460 #>>45035828 #
1. btown ◴[] No.45035460[source]
As someone who's been saved by look-aheads in many a situation, I'm quite partial to the approach detailed in [0]: use a regex library that checks for a timeout in its main matching loop.

This lets you have full backwards compatibility in languages like Python and JS/TS that support backreferences/lookarounds, without running any risk of DOS (including by your own handrolled regexes!)

And on modern processors, a suitably implemented check for a timeout would largely be branch-predicted to be a no-op, and would in theory result in no measurable change in performance. Unfortunately, the most optimized and battle-tested implementations seem to have either taken the linear-time NFA approaches, or have technical debt making timeout checks impractical (see comment in [0] on the Python core team's resistance to this) - so we're in a situation where we don't have the best of both worlds. Efforts like [1] are promising, especially if augmented with timeout logic, but early-stage.

[0] https://stackoverflow.com/a/74992735

[1] https://github.com/fancy-regex/fancy-regex