When writing code, you can call any function as long as it’s public, and similarly, you can access any object’s public properties or methods. Usually, access to code is all or none – a piece of code can be either public or private. Lately, I’ve been thinking about ways to implement more fine-grained access controls and have looked to the networking world for inspiration…
  • petey@aussie.zone
    5·
    3 months ago

    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

    • hosaka@programming.dev
      7·
      3 months ago

      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

  • 31337@sh.itjust.works
    2·
    3 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.

  • Jayjader@jlai.lu
    2·
    3 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.