bearer VS DOMPurify

My team and I released Bearer a couple of weeks ago, a newer open and free alternative to Brakeman to check your code for security and privacy risks. In addition to Ruby/Rails, we also cover your JS/TS code, which allows you to use a single solution for your whole Rails application.

Code security scanning tool (SAST) to discover, filter and prioritize security and privacy risks.

Code security scanning tool (SAST) to discover, filter and prioritize security and privacy risks.

Link to the Recipe https://github.com/Bearer/bearer/blob/main/pkg/classificatio...

Hi HN,

I’m Guillaume, the cofounder of Bearer, an Open Source SAST solution.

After launching a few weeks ago here on Hacker News with support for Ruby and JavaScript stacks, I’m happy to report we’ve just released a new version (v1.2) with TypeScript support!

In terms of code coverage, we use the same rules already implemented for vanilla JavaScript, but as usual, you can build your own.

The rules list is here: https://docs.bearer.com/reference/rules/

It’s a first version for TS, but we believe that thanks to the pre-existing JavaScript support it should already provide good insights.

If you have some TypeScript code, we would love for you to try it out and let us know in the comment below or on our Discord your experience and how we can improve the findings.

You can access the repo here: https://github.com/Bearer/bearer

Thank you again!

It can be challenging to keep up with security best practices. In addition to watching for vulnerability reports, you can also run regular scans on your codebase with a SAST tool like Bearer CLI. It's a free and secure way to get practical security feedback on your ruby code. Check it out on GitHub at bearer/bearer.

Using open-source tools to test open-source projects feels like a great match. It wasn't until the other day that I remembered that the team behind DEV had open-sourced the bones of the site as Forem. To make it an even better match, the stack matches up nicely with the currently supported languages included in Bearer's new free and open-source security application security testing (SAST) tool. Unlike many security tools, this one is really focused on helping devs make sense of security concerns in an actionable way.

Good news! There’s a free open-source tool that can scan your code, check for known risks, and give you a list of things that need fixing. All are sorted by how risky the code is—based on things like how sensitive the data is and how damaging a breach or leak would be. It’s called Bearer.

DOMPurify

I saw that some people were injecting alerts. If you haven't fixed it yet, consider using something like DOMPurify to sanitize the HTML input before posting it to the db.

You mean from this article "Sanitize HTML strings"? https://phuoc.ng/collection/html-dom/sanitize-html-strings/

Yeah, that article really shouldn't imply that sanitization is "that easy". It does at least mention https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify at the end but it should LOUDLY argue against attempting to write this particular thing yourself and promote that exclusively in my opinion.

It is highly recommended to use an XSS Sanitizer like DOMPurify to sanitize HTML and prevent XSS attacks. For Next.js projects, which prominently feature server-side rendering, Isomorphic DOMPurify is especially valuable. It offers a seamless sanitization process across both server and client, ensuring consistent HTML sanitization in environments like Next.js where a native server-side DOM isn't present.

Note: We’ve used DOMPurify to sanitize the HTML in the above code block. You can install it in Node.js with npm install dompurify. Include it in your HTML with .

body, input.value property, or body are all different). If you need to insert untrusted input into raw HTML, use a well-tested sanitizer such as DOMPurify.

Setting a strong Content Security Policy without unsafe-inline or unsafe-eval in the script-src or default-src directives is an effective defense-in-depth) measure to prevent modern browsers from executing attacker code even if the attacker is able to insert </code> elements into the page.</p> <p><strong>3. HTTP API injection</strong></p> <p>RESTful APIs, GraphQL, and other HTTP-based APIs are ubiquitous. When a web application makes an API call to another service, injection vulnerabilities are possible when that request includes untrusted input.</p> <p>Consider a contrived example in which a web app integrates with a payments service that has a REST API endpoint for creating a subscription: <code>POST /subscriptions/{product_id}?price_usd=<price></code> where <code>price_usd</code> is optional, and a pre-configured price is used if omitted. If an attacker controls the value of <code>product_id</code> and passes a value of <code>desired_product_id?price_id=0</code>, the web app would end up making a request to <code>POST /subscriptions/desired_product_id?price_id=0</code>, which would allow the attacker to sign up for a free subscription.</p> <p>In JavaScript, the standard way to sanitize untrusted inputs in URL paths is <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/encodeURIComponent"><code>encodeURIComponent</code></a>, which replaces problematic characters such as <code>?</code> and <code>/</code> with safe percent-encoded sequences. When inserting untrusted input into URL query parameters, <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/URLSearchParams/URLSearchParams"><code>new URLSearchParams(queryParams)</code></a> provides a convenient, safe interface for building a query string from a JavaScript object of key-value pairs.</p> <p><strong>4. Shell injection</strong></p> <p>Backend APIs sometimes need to execute external commands on the machine where they run. Consider an API that performs <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHOIS">WHOIS</a> lookups for a requested domain by executing the <code>whois</code> command locally.</p> <p>Consider the following <strong>vulnerable</strong> Node.js code:</p> <pre><code>const whois = child_process.execSync(`whois ${whoisRequest.domain}`); </code></pre> <p>If an attacker can pass the domain <code>reddit.com && rm -rf /</code>, the backend will execute the command <code>whois reddit.com && rm -rf /</code>. The <a href="https://nodejs.org/api/child_process.html#child_processexecsynccommand-options"><code>child_process.execSync</code></a> function passes the command string to the shell (<code>/bin/sh</code> by default on Linux), which parses <code>&& rm -rf /</code> as a subsequent command to wipe the filesystem.</p> <p>To avoid this issue, <strong>never pass untrusted input to a shell</strong>. Instead, use an interface such as <a href="https://nodejs.org/api/child_process.html#child_processexecfilesyncfile-args-options"><code>child_process.execFileSync</code></a> that executes a specific binary (which shouldn't be a shell!) and passes arguments <em>as an array</em>:</p> <pre><code>const whois = child_process.execFileSync("whois", [whoisRequest.domain]); </code></pre> <p>Now, even if the user passes a domain <code>reddit.com && rm -rf /</code>, that entire string will be passed as the command-line argument to <code>whois</code>, which will exit with an error but will not cause any harmful side-effects. Perhaps an even better solution would be to use a library to perform WHOIS queries without needing to execute a separate command.</p> <p>Astute readers may point out that validating the domain against a regex would also likely prevent shell injection in this case. However, avoiding the possibility of shell injection by using a safe interface that keeps untrusted input away from a shell's command parser is a more robust solution that avoids shell injection in all cases.</p> <p><strong>5. Path traversal</strong></p> <p>Finally, a path traversal vulnerability arises when an untrusted input is inserted into a filesystem path, which can cause the wrong file to be read or even written. Consider a backend API that reads a file at the path <code>/teams/${team_id}/${report_name}.csv</code>. If an attacker controls the value of <code>report_name</code> but not <code>team_id</code>, they could pass a <code>report_name</code> of <code>../other_team_id/private.</code> This would cause the file <code>/teams/team_id/../other_team_id/private.csv</code> (resolved to <code>/teams/other_team_id/private.csv</code>) to be read, leaking data from a different team.</p> <p>To avoid path traversal vulnerabilities, <strong>never use untrusted input in file or directory names</strong>. It's safest always to control the names of files and directories, including IDs that you generate and control (e.g., UUIDs, KSUIDs, etc.). If the name of a file or directory absolutely <em>must</em> be derived from untrusted input, consider hashing it (e.g., using SHA-256) or at least encoding it into a format that doesn't include dots or slashes (e.g., <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4648#section-5">URL-safe base64</a>).</p> <p>​</p> <p>Know of good Node.js libraries for avoiding injection vulnerabilities? Let folks know in the comments!</p> </div><!-- SC_ON -->

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43584685/input-sanitization-in-reactjs https://www.npmjs.com/package/dompurify

If you're using an external view engine, or a javascript framework like react in addition to your ruby backend, you can rely on similar sanitization methods like the DOMPurify library.

You shouldn't roll your own for this. From what I've had to do web-wise, here's a few tools.

First, for the APIs, you need documentation: https://swagger.io/

From which you can generate JSON schemas and use those to validate in the browser and on the backend. https://www.npmjs.com/package/jsonschema

As well you should be writing a few more schemas for your application state and leverage the regex validation of your input components...

Speaking of which, you also need to sanitize out some potentially nasty input. https://www.npmjs.com/package/dompurify

Obviously this isn't everything and not perfect, but a lot of this tedium can be automated away if you have a few good examples of the happy path and some basic tests in place to prevent quick and dirty changes from poking holes in these layers.