Skip to content

fix: disable CSRF checks in dev - #14335

Merged
dummdidumm merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
dev-disable-csrf
Aug 28, 2025
Merged

fix: disable CSRF checks in dev#14335
dummdidumm merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
dev-disable-csrf

Conversation

@Rich-Harris

@Rich-Harris Rich-Harris commented Aug 28, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

#14309 (comment)

closes #14309


Please don't delete this checklist! Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following:

  • It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. In many cases, features are absent for a reason. For large changes, please create an RFC: https://github.com/sveltejs/rfcs
  • This message body should clearly illustrate what problems it solves.
  • Ideally, include a test that fails without this PR but passes with it.

Tests

  • Run the tests with pnpm test and lint the project with pnpm lint and pnpm check

Changesets

  • If your PR makes a change that should be noted in one or more packages' changelogs, generate a changeset by running pnpm changeset and following the prompts. Changesets that add features should be minor and those that fix bugs should be patch. Please prefix changeset messages with feat:, fix:, or chore:.

Edits

  • Please ensure that 'Allow edits from maintainers' is checked. PRs without this option may be closed.

@changeset-bot

changeset-bot Bot commented Aug 28, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: bca2764

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Name Type
@sveltejs/kit Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

@svelte-docs-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@dummdidumm dummdidumm left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

worth a callout in the docs somewhere? not sure where, and not in any way blocking

@Rich-Harris

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

good point — added to the csrf.trustedOrigins inline docs

@dummdidumm
dummdidumm merged commit 7f4ab16 into main Aug 28, 2025
21 of 22 checks passed
@dummdidumm
dummdidumm deleted the dev-disable-csrf branch August 28, 2025 16:04
@github-actions github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2025
@khromov

khromov commented Aug 28, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@Rich-Harris I've talked to people on Discord that seemed to be running "npm run dev" in production. It's not a valid use case but I wonder if we won't accidentally enable a sudden security hole for these people, which can come back in form of badwill? This change sounds like something for Kit 3.x imho. Wouldn't it be possible to have remote functions respect csrf.checkOrigin?

@Rich-Harris

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I... what?

How? How does someone end up in that situation? It's literally called npm run dev.

Wouldn't it be possible to have remote functions respect csrf.checkOrigin?

That's a separate conversation to 'should the origin be checked?' and the answer is no — if something other than your own origin is calling remote functions, it's a bad request, period

Copilot AI pushed a commit to Stadly/kit that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2026
teemingc added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2026
…DE_ENV (#16313)

The NODE_ENV saga continues. Any build where NODE_ENV isn't `production`
currently ships with every origin check compiled out:

```js
// respond.js
if (!DEV) {
	// cross-site remote request check
	// cross-site form submission check (csrf.checkOrigin / trustedOrigins)
}
```

`DEV` comes from esm-env, which kit bundles into apps resolved by
NODE_ENV, so `NODE_ENV=staging vite build` produces a deployable server
with CSRF protection silently disabled. Vite's docs list non-production
builds as a supported workflow, and khromov raised this exact failure
mode in #14335 when the gate was added. At the time `DEV` was assumed to
only mean `vite dev`, which the esm-env consolidation in #14308 no
longer guarantees (first leak #15632, fixed by #15852, second leak
#16008, fixed by #16023).

This applies the rule from the #15852 body ("reverting to the global
constant where we want the code to only run during `vite dev` ... Every
other place that uses DEV is meant to fire warnings ... and that should
still happen if the user did `NODE_ENV=development vite build`") to two
sites it missed:

- the `respond.js` gate, `!DEV` to `!__SVELTEKIT_DEV__`, covering both
the form CSRF check and the remote functions origin check that now
shares it
- the live-serving condition in `app/server/remote/prerender.js`, same
one-token swap (prerendered remote functions were served live in these
builds)

The three validation `DEV` sites in `respond.js` (`validateHeaders`,
`page_nodes.validate()`, `validate_server_exports`) are deliberately
untouched. They are warning sites and should keep following NODE_ENV per
the rule. The check internals are also untouched, so this stays out of
the way of the `sec-fetch-site` idea in #15992.

The new spec in `test/build-errors` builds a minimal fixture with
`NODE_ENV=staging`, imports the generated server, and asserts a normal
GET returns 200 while a forged cross-site form POST returns 403. It
fails on main (the POST returns 200) and passes with the fix. The
existing basics CSRF tests stay green in both modes, and dev behavior is
unchanged.

There are HMR-coupled `DEV` gates in `client.js` and the remote query
modules from the same class. Left for a follow-up, `client.js` currently
conflicts with #16307.

---

### Please don't delete this checklist! Before submitting the PR, please
make sure you do the following:
- [x] It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is
discussed ahead of time. In many cases, features are absent for a
reason. For large changes, please create an RFC:
https://github.com/sveltejs/rfcs
- [x] This message body should clearly illustrate what problems it
solves.
- [x] Ideally, include a test that fails without this PR but passes with
it.

### Tests
- [x] Run the tests with `pnpm test` and lint the project with `pnpm
lint` and `pnpm check`

### Changesets
- [x] If your PR makes a change that should be noted in one or more
packages' changelogs, generate a changeset by running `pnpm changeset`
and following the prompts. Changesets that add features should be
`minor` and those that fix bugs should be `patch`. Please prefix
changeset messages with `feat:`, `fix:`, or `chore:`.

### Edits

- [x] Please ensure that 'Allow edits from maintainers' is checked. PRs
without this option may be closed.

---------

Co-authored-by: Tee Ming <chewteeming01@gmail.com>
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.

3 participants