You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Enable --security-revert to be used in NODE_OPTIONS environment variable #52017
When Nodejs is used for AWS lambda, the only mechanism available to supply Nodejs options is via NODE_OPTIONS environment variable. The recent Feb 24 security release started blocking use of RSA_PKCS1_PADDING in crypto module's privateDecrypt method. For any major company that always keep up to date with security patches, this new release immediate block Nodejs lambda's ability to process legacy data that was encrypted with RSA_PKCS1_PADDING.
If the --security-revert option can be specified via NODE_OPTIONS, we have the mechanism to allow Nodejs Lambda's to continue processing legacy data while remediation is developed and implemented.
What is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?
Just allow --security-revert to be specified and acknowledge using NODE_OPTIONS - and not restrict it to be on the command line.
What alternatives have you considered?
No other possibility when dealing with AWS Lambda Nodejs runtime.
I'm running into the same issue with AWS Lambda, and hit this with an API that is outside of my control.
As a workaround, we can use node-rsa:
constcrypto=require("crypto");constNodeRSA=require("node-rsa");constkeypair=crypto.generateKeyPairSync("rsa",{modulusLength: 2048,});constdata=Buffer.from("Hello, World!");constencrypted=crypto.publicEncrypt({key: keypair.publicKey,padding: crypto.constants.RSA_PKCS1_PADDING,},data);console.log("encrypted: ",encrypted.toString("base64"));constkeyRSA=newNodeRSA(keypair.privateKey.export({format: "pem",type: "pkcs1"}),"private",{encryptionScheme: "pkcs1",});// By default it will use the node crypto library with the CVEkeyRSA.setOptions({environment: "browser"});constdecrypted=keyRSA.decrypt(encrypted);console.log("decrypted: ",decrypted.toString());
Reacted by fliodhais, Tobias Koller, Melih Birim, Iva Kaneva, Eduardo Stefani Pacheco, Jonathan Sleeuw and keguigong
Thanks for the suggestion, we wrapped the original privateDecrypt in try
catch and use node-rsa as a back up. But we prefer to have the NODE_OPTIONS
support since node-rsa is JavaScript based implementation (when you specify
browser - otherwise it actually relegate the work back to crypto module)
while crypto leverage native code.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 5:34 PM Will Bradley ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm running into the same issue with AWS Lambda, and hit this with an API
that is outside of my control.
As a workaround, we can use node-rsa:
const crypto = require("crypto");const NodeRSA = require("node-rsa");
const keypair = crypto.generateKeyPairSync("rsa", {
modulusLength: 2048,});
const data = Buffer.from("Hello, World!");
const encrypted = crypto.publicEncrypt(
{
key: keypair.publicKey,
padding: crypto.constants.RSA_PKCS1_PADDING,
},
data);console.log("encrypted: ", encrypted.toString("base64"));
const keyRSA = new NodeRSA(
keypair.privateKey.export({ format: "pem", type: "pkcs1" }),
"private",
{
encryptionScheme: "pkcs1",
});
// By default it will use the node crypto library with the CVEkeyRSA.setOptions({ environment: "browser" });
const decrypted = keyRSA.decrypt(encrypted);console.log("decrypted: ", decrypted.toString());
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#52017 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANJLIH4NWQ6WGFQ27SAGIPLYXTGWFAVCNFSM6AAAAABENKVUGCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSOBXGM3DSNRRGA>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the workaround (and adding another dependency), and would much rather be able to disable the CVE block with an environment variable or other method.
The workaround isn't ideal but at least it works in the case of AWS lambda environment where we can't just simply pass in the NODE_OPTIONS unfortunately this is a good patch solution.
I'm surprised that NODE_OPTIONS does not support the security revert command line options. We'll have to see if that was on purpose on an omission due to the way options are allowed in NODE_OPTIONS.
I've reached out to one of the other maintainers that was part of the original PR/discussion to see if we still believe the exclusion from NODE_OPTIONS is the right way to go.
Having node-rsa and environment attribute to 'browser' solved the problem on my end. But the problem is having a fix on node that does break all the code we have without clarifying the exact real solution.
Any system, without a change should work as it is. It just drops the trust on the node versions in which we are not responsible to update to the latest version like in AWS lambda.
Talked with one of the other maintainers re the earlier concerns about including --cve-revert in NODE_OPTIONS and those concerns still apply.
One idea we came up with was the option of adding and api along the lines of
process.cveRevert('cve...")
that could be used to turn on a revert programatically. That would require an update to the Node.js application and would not flow through to spawned processes (similar to command line options I think), but would give another option versus the command line.
@singyantam would that approach work in your situation?
I think that would work for us, I was wondering if I could set process.CVE_... to true manually (As that is true when the security revert is applied), but seeing as this logic is in native code and not userland, that would not do anything.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 5:01 PM Michael Dawson ***@***.***> wrote:
Talked with one of the other maintainers re the earlier concerns about
including --cve-revert in NODE_OPTIONS and those concerns still apply.
One idea we came up with was the option of adding and api along the lines
of
process.cveRevert('cve...")
that could be used to turn on a revert programatically. That would require
an update to the Node.js application and would not flow through to spawned
processes (similar to command line options I think), but would give another
option versus the command line.
@singyantam <https://github.com/singyantam> would that approach work in
your situation?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#52017 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANJLIH2UUGYYK4DC4DDYIELYYC5BHAVCNFSM6AAAAABENKVUGCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSOJVG44TQMJQGE>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
@mhdawson Yes, and no user code can change the setting at runtime (except for child processes, but users can always pass --security-revert to child processes as well). It would also work for hypothetical scenarios in which some configuration is only possible before running user code, e.g., if it's some V8 flag or libuv setup or so.
From a library standpoint, requiring users to use command line or environment variables to revert seems relatively high friction especially as it's code that has worked before and suddenly stops working on a new node version.
I do understand the security rationale for this change, but is there a reason an override couldn't be added to a call parameter and not relying on environment variables or runtime options (which we don't have much control over from lib standpoint)? We may have to switch to a pure JS implementation to handle this cleanly (thanks @WilliamABradley for the snippet).
There has been no activity on this feature request for 5 months. To help maintain relevant open issues, please add the
never-staleIssues and PRs exempt from automated stale handling.
label or close this issue if it should be closed. If not, the issue will be automatically closed 6 months after the last non-automated comment.
For more information on how the project manages feature requests, please consult the feature request management document.
There has been no activity on this feature request and it is being closed. If you feel closing this issue is not the right thing to do, please leave a comment.
Activity
WilliamABradley commentedon Mar 10, 2024
I'm running into the same issue with AWS Lambda, and hit this with an API that is outside of my control.
As a workaround, we can use node-rsa:
singyantam commentedon Mar 10, 2024
WilliamABradley commentedon Mar 10, 2024
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the workaround (and adding another dependency), and would much rather be able to disable the CVE block with an environment variable or other method.
fliodhais commentedon Mar 11, 2024
The workaround isn't ideal but at least it works in the case of AWS lambda environment where we can't just simply pass in the NODE_OPTIONS unfortunately this is a good patch solution.
mhdawson commentedon Mar 11, 2024
I'm surprised that NODE_OPTIONS does not support the security revert command line options. We'll have to see if that was on purpose on an omission due to the way options are allowed in NODE_OPTIONS.
mhdawson commentedon Mar 11, 2024
It seems like it was a specific decision at the time - #12028 (comment)
mhdawson commentedon Mar 11, 2024
I've reached out to one of the other maintainers that was part of the original PR/discussion to see if we still believe the exclusion from NODE_OPTIONS is the right way to go.
melihbirim commentedon Mar 13, 2024
Having node-rsa and environment attribute to 'browser' solved the problem on my end. But the problem is having a fix on node that does break all the code we have without clarifying the exact real solution.
Any system, without a change should work as it is. It just drops the trust on the node versions in which we are not responsible to update to the latest version like in AWS lambda.
mhdawson commentedon Mar 13, 2024
Talked with one of the other maintainers re the earlier concerns about including --cve-revert in NODE_OPTIONS and those concerns still apply.
One idea we came up with was the option of adding and api along the lines of
process.cveRevert('cve...")
that could be used to turn on a revert programatically. That would require an update to the Node.js application and would not flow through to spawned processes (similar to command line options I think), but would give another option versus the command line.
@singyantam would that approach work in your situation?
WilliamABradley commentedon Mar 14, 2024
I think that would work for us, I was wondering if I could set
process.CVE_...to true manually (As that is true when the security revert is applied), but seeing as this logic is in native code and not userland, that would not do anything.singyantam commentedon Mar 14, 2024
src: add `process.cveRevert`
12 remaining items
tniessen commentedon Apr 4, 2024
@mhdawson Yes, and no user code can change the setting at runtime (except for child processes, but users can always pass
--security-revertto child processes as well). It would also work for hypothetical scenarios in which some configuration is only possible before running user code, e.g., if it's some V8 flag or libuv setup or so.tniessen commentedon Apr 4, 2024
Alternative PR: #52365
tniessen commentedon Apr 8, 2024
@singyantam @WilliamABradley @if-fi Could you please check if #52365 would solve this issue for you?
if-fi commentedon Apr 8, 2024
It looks like it would solve the Google Cloud Functions issue.
src: add NODE_SECURITY_REVERT environment variable
extremeheat commentedon Apr 27, 2024
From a library standpoint, requiring users to use command line or environment variables to revert seems relatively high friction especially as it's code that has worked before and suddenly stops working on a new node version.
I do understand the security rationale for this change, but is there a reason an override couldn't be added to a call parameter and not relying on environment variables or runtime options (which we don't have much control over from lib standpoint)? We may have to switch to a pure JS implementation to handle this cleanly (thanks @WilliamABradley for the snippet).
+1 to mhdawson's proposal:
in #52090 -- this would be great!
github-actions commentedon Oct 25, 2024
There has been no activity on this feature request for 5 months. To help maintain relevant open issues, please add the never-staleIssues and PRs exempt from automated stale handling.
label or close this issue if it should be closed. If not, the issue will be automatically closed 6 months after the last non-automated comment.
For more information on how the project manages feature requests, please consult the feature request management document.
github-actions commentedon Nov 24, 2024
There has been no activity on this feature request and it is being closed. If you feel closing this issue is not the right thing to do, please leave a comment.
For more information on how the project manages feature requests, please consult the feature request management document.