Security and Hardening
Overview
Security-first development practices for web applications. Treat every external input as hostile, every secret as sacred, and every authorization check as mandatory. Security isn't a phase — it's a constraint on every line of code that touches user data, authentication, or external systems.
When to Use
- Building anything that accepts user input
- Implementing authentication or authorization
- Storing or transmitting sensitive data
- Integrating with external APIs or services
- Adding file uploads, webhooks, or callbacks
- Handling payment or PII data
Process: Threat Model First
Controls bolted on without a threat model are guesses. Before hardening, spend five minutes thinking like an attacker:
- Map the trust boundaries. Where does untrusted data cross into your system? HTTP requests, form fields, file uploads, webhooks, third-party APIs, message queues, and LLM output. Every boundary is attack surface.
- Name the assets. What's worth stealing or breaking? Credentials, PII, payment data, admin actions, money movement.
- Run STRIDE over each boundary — a quick lens, not a ceremony:
| Threat | Ask | Typical mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Spoofing | Can someone impersonate a user/service? | Authentication, signature verification |
| Tampering | Can data be altered in transit or at rest? | Integrity checks, parameterized queries, HTTPS |
| Repudiation | Can an action be denied later? | Audit logging of security events |
| Information disclosure | Can data leak? | Encryption, field allowlists, generic errors |
| Denial of service | Can it be overwhelmed? | Rate limiting, input size caps, timeouts |
| Elevation of privilege | Can a user gain rights they shouldn't? | Authorization checks, least privilege |
- Write abuse cases next to use cases. For each feature, ask "how would I misuse this?" — then make that your first test.
If you can't name the trust boundaries for a feature, you're not ready to secure it. This is OWASP A04: Insecure Design — most breaches begin in design, not code.
The Three-Tier Boundary System
Always Do (No Exceptions)
- Validate all external input at the system boundary (API routes, form handlers)
- Parameterize all database queries — never concatenate user input into SQL
- Encode output to prevent XSS (use framework auto-escaping, don't bypass it)
- Use HTTPS for all external communication
- Hash passwords with bcrypt/scrypt/argon2 (never store plaintext)
- Set security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options)
- Use httpOnly, secure, sameSite cookies for sessions
- Run
npm audit(or equivalent) before every release
Ask First (Requires Human Approval)
- Adding new authentication flows or changing auth logic
- Storing new categories of sensitive data (PII, payment info)
- Adding new external service integrations
- Changing CORS configuration
- Adding file upload handlers
- Modifying rate limiting or throttling
- Granting elevated permissions or roles
Never Do
- Never commit secrets to version control (API keys, passwords, tokens)
- Never log sensitive data (passwords, tokens, full credit card numbers)
- Never trust client-side validation as a security boundary
- Never disable security headers for convenience
- Never use
eval()orinnerHTMLwith user-provided data - Never store sessions in client-accessible storage (localStorage for auth tokens)
- Never expose stack traces or internal error details to users
OWASP Top 10 Prevention Patterns
These are prevention patterns, not a ranking. For the 2021 ordering, see the quick-reference table in references/security-checklist.md.
Injection (SQL, NoSQL, OS Command)
typescript// BAD: SQL injection via string concatenation const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = '${userId}'`; // GOOD: Parameterized query const user = await db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1', [userId]); // GOOD: ORM with parameterized input const user = await prisma.user.findUnique({ where: { id: userId } });
Broken Authentication
typescript// Password hashing import { hash, compare } from 'bcrypt'; const SALT_ROUNDS = 12; const hashedPassword = await hash(plaintext, SALT_ROUNDS); const isValid = await compare(plaintext, hashedPassword); // Session management app.use(session({ secret: process.env.SESSION_SECRET, // From environment, not code resave: false, saveUninitialized: false, cookie: { httpOnly: true, // Not accessible via JavaScript secure: true, // HTTPS only sameSite: 'lax', // CSRF protection maxAge: 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000, // 24 hours }, }));
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
typescript// BAD: Rendering user input as HTML element.innerHTML = userInput; // GOOD: Use framework auto-escaping (React does this by default) return <div>{userInput}</div>; // If you MUST render HTML, sanitize first import DOMPurify from 'dompurify'; const clean = DOMPurify.sanitize(userInput);
Broken Access Control
typescript// Always check authorization, not just authentication app.patch('/api/tasks/:id', authenticate, async (req, res) => { const task = await taskService.findById(req.params.id); // Check that the authenticated user owns this resource if (task.ownerId !== req.user.id) { return res.status(403).json({ error: { code: 'FORBIDDEN', message: 'Not authorized to modify this task' } }); } // Proceed with update const updated = await taskService.update(req.params.id, req.body); return res.json(updated); });
Security Misconfiguration
typescript// Security headers (use helmet for Express) import helmet from 'helmet'; app.use(helmet()); // Content Security Policy app.use(helmet.contentSecurityPolicy({ directives: { defaultSrc: ["'self'"], scriptSrc: ["'self'"], styleSrc: ["'self'", "'unsafe-inline'"], // Tighten if possible imgSrc: ["'self'", 'data:', 'https:'], connectSrc: ["'self'"], }, })); // CORS — restrict to known origins app.use(cors({ origin: process.env.ALLOWED_ORIGINS?.split(',') || 'http://localhost:3000', credentials: true, }));
Sensitive Data Exposure
typescript// Never return sensitive fields in API responses function sanitizeUser(user: UserRecord): PublicUser { const { passwordHash, resetToken, ...publicFields } = user; return publicFields; } // Use environment variables for secrets const API_KEY = process.env.STRIPE_API_KEY; if (!API_KEY) throw new Error('STRIPE_API_KEY not configured');
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Any time the server fetches a URL the user influenced — webhooks, "import from URL", image proxies, link previews — an attacker can aim it at internal services (cloud metadata, localhost, private IPs).
typescript// BAD: fetch whatever the user gives you await fetch(req.body.webhookUrl); // GOOD: allowlist scheme + host, reject if ANY resolved IP is private, forbid redirects import { lookup } from 'node:dns/promises'; import ipaddr from 'ipaddr.js'; const ALLOWED_HOSTS = new Set(['hooks.example.com']); async function assertSafeUrl(raw: string): Promise<URL> { const url = new URL(raw); if (url.protocol !== 'https:') throw new Error('https only'); if (!ALLOWED_HOSTS.has(url.hostname)) throw new Error('host not allowed'); // Resolve ALL records; a single private/reserved address fails the check. const addrs = await lookup(url.hostname, { all: true }); if (addrs.some((a) => ipaddr.parse(a.address).range() !== 'unicast')) { throw new Error('private/reserved IP'); } return url; } await fetch(await assertSafeUrl(req.body.webhookUrl), { redirect: 'error' });
The range() !== 'unicast' check covers loopback, link-local 169.254.169.254 (cloud metadata, the #1 SSRF target), private, and unique-local ranges across IPv4 and IPv6.
Caveat — this still has a TOCTOU gap. fetch resolves DNS again after the check, so an attacker using a short-TTL record can rebind to an internal IP between validation and connection. For high-risk surfaces, resolve once and connect to the pinned IP, or put a filtering agent in front (request-filtering-agent / ssrf-req-filter).
Input Validation Patterns
Schema Validation at Boundaries
typescriptimport { z } from 'zod'; const CreateTaskSchema = z.object({ title: z.string().min(1).max(200).trim(), description: z.string().max(2000).optional(), priority: z.enum(['low', 'medium', 'high']).default('medium'), dueDate: z.string().datetime().optional(), }); // Validate at the route handler app.post('/api/tasks', async (req, res) => { const result = CreateTaskSchema.safeParse(req.body); if (!result.success) { return res.status(422).json({ error: { code: 'VALIDATION_ERROR', message: 'Invalid input', details: result.error.flatten(), }, }); } // result.data is now typed and validated const task = await taskService.create(result.data); return res.status(201).json(task); });
File Upload Safety
typescript// Restrict file types and sizes const ALLOWED_TYPES = ['image/jpeg', 'image/png', 'image/webp']; const MAX_SIZE = 5 * 1024 * 1024; // 5MB function validateUpload(file: UploadedFile) { if (!ALLOWED_TYPES.includes(file.mimetype)) { throw new ValidationError('File type not allowed'); } if (file.size > MAX_SIZE) { throw new ValidationError('File too large (max 5MB)'); } // Don't trust the file extension — check magic bytes if critical }
Triaging npm audit Results
Not all audit findings require immediate action. Use this decision tree:
npm audit reports a vulnerability ├── Severity: critical or high │ ├── Is the vulnerable code reachable in your app? │ │ ├── YES --> Fix immediately (update, patch, or replace the dependency) │ │ └── NO (dev-only dep, unused code path) --> Fix soon, but not a blocker │ └── Is a fix available? │ ├── YES --> Update to the patched version │ └── NO --> Check for workarounds, consider replacing the dependency, or add to allowlist with a review date ├── Severity: moderate │ ├── Reachable in production? --> Fix in the next release cycle │ └── Dev-only? --> Fix when convenient, track in backlog └── Severity: low └── Track and fix during regular dependency updates
Key questions:
- Is the vulnerable function actually called in your code path?
- Is the dependency a runtime dependency or dev-only?
- Is the vulnerability exploitable given your deployment context (e.g., a server-side vulnerability in a client-only app)?
When you defer a fix, document the reason and set a review date.
Supply-Chain Hygiene
npm audit catches known CVEs; it won't catch a malicious or typosquatted package. Also:
- Commit the lockfile and install with
npm ci(notnpm install) in CI — reproducible builds, no silent version drift. - Review new dependencies before adding them — maintenance, download counts, and whether they truly earn their place. Every dependency is attack surface (OWASP A06: Vulnerable Components, LLM03: Supply Chain).
- Be wary of
postinstallscripts in unfamiliar packages — they run arbitrary code at install time. - Watch for typosquats —
cross-envvscrossenv,react-domvsreactdom.
Rate Limiting
typescriptimport rateLimit from 'express-rate-limit'; // General API rate limit app.use('/api/', rateLimit({ windowMs: 15 * 60 * 1000, // 15 minutes max: 100, // 100 requests per window standardHeaders: true, legacyHeaders: false, })); // Stricter limit for auth endpoints app.use('/api/auth/', rateLimit({ windowMs: 15 * 60 * 1000, max: 10, // 10 attempts per 15 minutes }));
Secrets Management
.env files: ├── .env.example → Committed (template with placeholder values) ├── .env → NOT committed (contains real secrets) └── .env.local → NOT committed (local overrides) .gitignore must include: .env .env.local .env.*.local *.pem *.key
Always check before committing:
bash# Check for accidentally staged secrets git diff --cached | grep -i "password\|secret\|api_key\|token"
If a secret is ever committed, rotate it. Deleting the line or rewriting history is not enough — assume it's compromised the moment it reaches a remote. Revoke and reissue the key first, then purge it from history.
Securing AI / LLM Features
If your app calls an LLM — chatbots, summarizers, agents, RAG — it inherits a new attack surface. Map it to the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications (2025):
- Treat all model output as untrusted input (LLM05: Improper Output Handling). Never pass LLM output straight into
eval, SQL, a shell,innerHTML, or a file path. Validate and encode it exactly as you would raw user input. - Assume prompts can be hijacked (LLM01: Prompt Injection). Untrusted text in the context window — a user message, a fetched web page, a PDF — can carry instructions. The system prompt is not a security boundary; enforce permissions in code, not in the prompt.
- Keep secrets and other users' data out of prompts (LLM02 / LLM07). Anything in the context can be echoed back. Don't put API keys, cross-tenant data, or the full system prompt where the model can repeat it.
- Constrain tool and agent permissions (LLM06: Excessive Agency). Scope tools to the minimum, require confirmation for destructive or irreversible actions, and validate every tool argument.
- Bound consumption (LLM10: Unbounded Consumption). Cap tokens, request rate, and loop/recursion depth so a crafted input can't run up cost or hang the system.
- Isolate retrieval data (LLM08: Vector and Embedding Weaknesses). In RAG, treat the vector store as a trust boundary: partition embeddings per tenant so one user can't retrieve another's data, and validate documents before indexing so poisoned content can't steer answers.
typescript// BAD: trusting model output as a command or as markup const sql = await llm.generate(`Write SQL for: ${userQuestion}`); await db.query(sql); // arbitrary query execution container.innerHTML = await llm.reply(userMessage); // stored XSS, via the model // GOOD: model output is data — parse defensively, then validate, then encode let intent; try { intent = CommandSchema.parse(JSON.parse(await llm.replyJson(userMessage))); } catch { throw new ValidationError('unexpected model output'); // JSON.parse or schema failed } await runAllowlistedAction(intent.action, intent.params); container.textContent = await llm.reply(userMessage);
Security Review Checklist
markdown### Authentication - [ ] Passwords hashed with bcrypt/scrypt/argon2 (salt rounds ≥ 12) - [ ] Session tokens are httpOnly, secure, sameSite - [ ] Login has rate limiting - [ ] Password reset tokens expire ### Authorization - [ ] Every endpoint checks user permissions - [ ] Users can only access their own resources - [ ] Admin actions require admin role verification ### Input - [ ] All user input validated at the boundary - [ ] SQL queries are parameterized - [ ] HTML output is encoded/escaped - [ ] Server-side URL fetches are allowlisted (no SSRF to internal services) ### Data - [ ] No secrets in code or version control - [ ] Sensitive fields excluded from API responses - [ ] PII encrypted at rest (if applicable) ### Infrastructure - [ ] Security headers configured (CSP, HSTS, etc.) - [ ] CORS restricted to known origins - [ ] Dependencies audited for vulnerabilities - [ ] Error messages don't expose internals ### Supply Chain - [ ] Lockfile committed; CI installs with `npm ci` - [ ] New dependencies reviewed (maintenance, downloads, postinstall scripts) ### AI / LLM (if used) - [ ] Model output treated as untrusted (no eval/SQL/innerHTML/shell) - [ ] Secrets and other users' data kept out of prompts - [ ] Tool/agent permissions scoped; destructive actions require confirmation
See Also
For detailed security checklists and pre-commit verification steps, see references/security-checklist.md.
Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "This is an internal tool, security doesn't matter" | Internal tools get compromised. Attackers target the weakest link. |
| "We'll add security later" | Security retrofitting is 10x harder than building it in. Add it now. |
| "No one would try to exploit this" | Automated scanners will find it. Security by obscurity is not security. |
| "The framework handles security" | Frameworks provide tools, not guarantees. You still need to use them correctly. |
| "It's just a prototype" | Prototypes become production. Security habits from day one. |
| "Threat modeling is overkill here" | Five minutes of "how would I attack this?" prevents the design flaws no control can patch later. |
| "It's just LLM output, it's only text" | That "text" can be a SQL statement, a script tag, or a shell command. Treat it like any untrusted input. |
Red Flags
- User input passed directly to database queries, shell commands, or HTML rendering
- Secrets in source code or commit history
- API endpoints without authentication or authorization checks
- Missing CORS configuration or wildcard (
*) origins - No rate limiting on authentication endpoints
- Stack traces or internal errors exposed to users
- Dependencies with known critical vulnerabilities
- Server fetches user-supplied URLs without an allowlist (SSRF)
- LLM/model output passed into a query, the DOM, a shell, or
eval - Secrets, PII, or the full system prompt placed inside an LLM context window
Verification
After implementing security-relevant code:
-
npm auditshows no critical or high vulnerabilities - No secrets in source code or git history
- All user input validated at system boundaries
- Authentication and authorization checked on every protected endpoint
- Security headers present in response (check with browser DevTools)
- Error responses don't expose internal details
- Rate limiting active on auth endpoints
- Server-side URL fetches validated against an allowlist (no SSRF)
- LLM/model output validated and encoded before use (if AI features present)


