Skip to content

🔒 [Fix Timing Attack Vulnerability in API Key Check]#24

Open
suranig wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
security-fix-timing-attack-12089195514271818230
Open

🔒 [Fix Timing Attack Vulnerability in API Key Check]#24
suranig wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
security-fix-timing-attack-12089195514271818230

Conversation

@suranig

@suranig suranig commented Jul 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

🎯 What: Fixed a timing attack vulnerability in the API key comparison logic by implementing a secure timingSafeStringEqual utility.

⚠️ Risk: The previous use of the standard equality operator (===) allowed attackers to potentially guess the API key character-by-character by measuring small differences in response times. This could lead to unauthorized cache clearance or revalidation in production environments.

🛡️ Solution:

  1. Implemented timingSafeStringEqual in src/instrumentation/index.ts. It hashes both inputs with SHA-256 before comparing them with crypto.timingSafeEqual. This approach is secure even for strings of different lengths and prevents timing leaks for both the value and the length of the secret.
  2. Updated the JSDoc @example in src/instrumentation/index.ts to promote secure coding practices.
  3. Updated the example API route examples/next-pages-router/api/revalidate.ts to use the secure comparison.
  4. Added test/security.test.ts with comprehensive test cases (matching, mismatching, length mismatch, and invalid types).

Verification:

  • Manually verified the logic with a Node.js script due to environment-specific network issues preventing full npm install.
  • Verified matching strings return true.
  • Verified mismatching strings (same and different lengths) return false.
  • Verified non-string inputs are handled gracefully.

PR created automatically by Jules for task 12089195514271818230 started by @suranig

Introduced timingSafeStringEqual utility using crypto.timingSafeEqual and SHA-256 hashing to securely compare API keys of arbitrary lengths. Updated documentation examples and the revalidate API example to use this utility. Added unit tests for the new utility.

Co-authored-by: suranig <24814104+suranig@users.noreply.github.com>
@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.


For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jul 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant