Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Why run request handlers "successfully" if the request fails CORS? #109

Closed
wearhere opened this issue Mar 26, 2017 · 8 comments
Closed

Why run request handlers "successfully" if the request fails CORS? #109

wearhere opened this issue Mar 26, 2017 · 8 comments

Comments

@wearhere
Copy link

wearhere commented Mar 26, 2017

If a request fails CORS as specified by this module's configuration, the module will not set the CORS headers on the response. However, it will still call next, causing the usual request handler to run. This can be a problem if the request is expensive to handle, or has side effects.

What is the thinking behind this? It seems reasonable to terminate the request immediately, or at least call next with an error, if it's going to fail client-side due to the lack of CORS headers.

Here is a small project demonstrating this issue: https://github.com/mixmaxhq/cors-response-tester.

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

This is how the CORS specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/) is written.

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

Essentially CORS is written as a form of "double-opt-in" such that a server that has no idea what CORS is is not vulnerable to anything. Your example route would still be vulnerable with a simple <img src='http://localhost:9999/something-expensive'> since no Origin header is sent at all, so CORS does not even come into play. It is important to understand what the exact types of protections the CORS specification provides and does not provide; this module simply implements the specification as outlined by the W3C :)

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

I forgot to mention, that if you do want to implement this, you can do so by passing a function to the origin option and providing an Error object to the callback when you don't allow the origin, causing the Express error handing stack to take over instead of invoking your route. Do keep in mind that you are not getting some kind of security mechanism out of this, as can be demoed by my <img> tag example, though.

@wearhere
Copy link
Author

wearhere commented Mar 26, 2017

Thanks for the quick and thorough response @dougwilson. I don't see why you would want to "stop" at the CORS specification—what's the use of responding if the response can't be used?—but that's your call. Easy to fix in user-space / another package.

Do keep in mind that you are not getting some kind of security mechanism out of this, as can be demoed by my <img> tag example, though.

At least for my use case, the origin callback can simply return an Error if an origin header is missing, i.e. I'm securing routes that are only designed to be called via AJAX.

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @wearhere you were asking, technically why the default behavior was the way it was, which is that the default is closest to the specification. We provide mechanisms to differ from the spec as I provided above for your use-case, so I hope that helps.

The CORS specification was never designed as a security mechanism to prevent routes from being called; it was only designed as a mechanism to allow a hole to be added to the cross-origin rules of browser user agents. The specification is designed such that a "CORS failure" should look exactly as if the server has no idea what CORS is--in which case the request will still go through.

I would suggest bring this up to the W3C if you would like implementers to implement it differently, and I would be happy to do so; this really isn't the forum to get changes progressed through the specification :)

@wearhere
Copy link
Author

wearhere commented Mar 26, 2017

Ah, @dougwilson your defaults make sense to me. What I wonder is, would you be open to a PR that added a setting to simplify the "have the origin callback return an Error" approach? Like,

cors({
  // Modelled after `preflightContinue` / `optionsSuccessStatus`.
  mismatchContinue: false, // defaults to `true`
  mismatchStatus: 400 // the default
})

and then if the origin didn't match (here, and if the origin failed some new checking here) and !mismatchContinue, the middleware would res.status(mismatchStatus).end().

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

HI @wearhere sure, feel free to make that PR. I'm a little confused, because it won't even work for your use-case; a missing Origin header won't be a mismatch at all, just FYI. Also, I think the line references you gave are not at all where those check should go, because they would only apply to the dynamic origin function, not all the others like a static origin string, array, etc.

module would res.status(mismatchStatus).end()

Please be aware that this module supports all Node.js and not is Express-only, so you need to use only the Node.js API https://nodejs.org/dist/latest-v6.x/docs/api/http.html#http_class_http_serverresponse

wearhere added a commit to mixmaxhq/cors-1 that referenced this issue Mar 27, 2017
…tchContinue: false`

This option enables this module to be used for basic CSRF protection as
recommended by the OWASP: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_(CSRF)_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet#Checking_the_Origin_Header,
while remaining strictly compatible with the CORS specification by default.

When `mismatchComplete === false` and a request's origin header is either
missing or not allowed, per the module's configuration, the middleware will
terminate the request rather than execute the next handler. If
`mismatchComplete` is any other value, the middleware will execute the next
handler as before.

When the middleware terminates the request, it does so with a 400 by default
since https://httpstatuses.com/400 says that can be used for "deceptive
request routing"; this status code is configurable with `mismatchStatus`.

Fixes expressjs#109.
@wearhere
Copy link
Author

Here's my PR @dougwilson: #110 Thanks for your consideration!

hispanic pushed a commit to hispanic/staticwoman that referenced this issue Jan 18, 2021
…ils to satisfy the CORS configuration, as enabled using the expressjs/cors module, the request will _not_ be rejected by Express. It will simply cause the CORS response header(s) to not be set on the response. As a result, a CORS-compliant browser will raise an error such as the following upon receipt of the response:

"Cross-Origin Request Blocked: The Same Origin Policy disallows reading the remote resource at http://localhost:8082/v3/entry/gitlab/ihispanic/staticman-test/master/comments. (Reason: CORS header ‘Access-Control-Allow-Origin’ missing)."

"The CORS specification was never designed as a security mechanism to prevent routes from being called; it was only designed as a mechanism to allow a hole to be added to the cross-origin rules of browser user agents."
- expressjs/cors#109 (comment)

In practice...
- Using CORS to restrict the requesting origin would prevent another site from pointing their POST requests at my Staticman instance. But, if the submissions were high-quality, what reason would I have to complain? And low-quality submissions could just as easily come through via my site. Furthermore, those requests would still be processed by Staticman.
- Using CORS to restrict the requesting origin would not prevent a truly malicious actor from submitted POST requests using a tool (e.g., Postman, etc.) that allows for the Origin header to be spoofed.

Restricting POST requests to a Staticman instance, therefore, comes down to use of express-brute, Akismet, captchas, and the like.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants