this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
31 points (84.4% liked)

Programming

17424 readers
41 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

The idea is neat, and there is a certain precedent for the approach in .htaccess files and webserver path permissions.

Still, I worry about the added burden to keeping track of filenames when they get used as stringed keys in such a manner. More plainly: if I rename a file, I now have to go change every access declaration that mentions it. Sure, a quick grep will probably do the trick. But I don't see a way to have tooling automate any part of it, either.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I think similar, and arguably more fine-grained, things can be done with Typescript, traditional OOP (interfaces, and maybe the Facade pattern), and perhaps dependency injection.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I love that you’re thinking about how to secure sensitive parts of JS applications, however I wonder what threat this is guarding against. Can you give an example? Surely if an attacker can modify the source to call the sensitive functions, then they could modify the allow list

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I think it's is not aimed to protect against potential attacks, this is aimed at a developer using/writing modules of code. This is not a security guard

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Ah ok, the name implies it’s a security guard

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I think its lacking of imagination

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Now that is ancient js style

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

More hellish complexity