Repository navigation
Suggestion: a developer friendly, secure API聽#240
Description
Hi! 馃憢
I'd like to thank everyone who has ever worked on this library, as it has helped me build things I wouldn't have built otherwise.
Because I like it so much, I must tell you that I noticed some security issues which I believe could be avoided if the API was simpler.
I'd like to propose adding a high-level API that makes our apps harder to hack. Here's how it'd look:
node = getTheOnlySignedNodeOrNull(xml, publicKey)and
nodesArray = getSignedNodes(xml, publicKey)You can read the rationale behind it in this blog post - Your XML security library is sabotaging your work. Here's what you can do about it. It's evident verifying signatures poses a real challenge. An example is described in a post titled Are XML Signatures secure?.
The current, low-level API doesn't have to be removed, so everything can be backward-compatible.
The new, safer API can be built on top of the existing one.
Should we help developers deliver secure solutions?
Activity
djaqua commentedon Feb 17, 2023
Yes, I love this, personally, but I think it's worth having a discussion around making the high level API as flexible as possible. We're in the process of knocking out some real low-level pain points and potentially some redesign.
The API you're proposing is basically a facade over the package that ensures that clients successfully accomplish what they mean to, right?
CC @LoneRifle @cjbarth
lukaszmakuch commentedon Feb 20, 2023
You're right @djaqua. What I'm proposing is a facade over the current API. I have actually implemented something like that for a client of mine so that reading "safe" data from XMLs is not a footgun.
I'd love to hear more about the ideas for the potential redesign. What are the goals you're aiming for with this redesign?
cjbarth commentedon Apr 18, 2023
@djaqua @lukaszmakuch , how's this discussion going?
lukaszmakuch commentedon Apr 19, 2023
I don鈥檛 have any updates.
cjbarth commentedon May 29, 2023
Would either @djaqua or @lukaszmakuch like to propose such an API, either here or in a PR so that this can keep moving forward?
djaqua commentedon Jun 11, 2023
@cjbarth & @lukaszmakuch -- check out #304
I think the Facade would easily and effectively knock out high level goals 1 & 2. I would be glad to donate the Facade I have made for my own use. It would take me an evening or two to clean it up and add JSDocs. But .... I don't want to start coding until we have a real serious discussion about where we want to take this project.
LoneRifle commentedon Jun 11, 2023
Could we enable discussions on this repo? It would facilitate discourse better than GitHub Issues
djaqua commentedon Jun 11, 2023
I have no idea how, but yes, I am most definitely in favor of that.
djaqua commentedon Jun 12, 2023
Also, @cjbarth @LoneRifle do you guys use Microsoft Teams? I can't believe I'm about to say this, but ... I actually think its a pretty neat tool. Can do virtual conferencing, share and manage notes, create TODO lists, and lots of other project management stuff. I think we can collaborate for free, but if you guys hate it, then lets not use it. Just putting it out there as an option.