Lock down include wrappers to avoid abuse from third parties #11015
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thank you @Seldaek . |
staabm
reviewed
Aug 21, 2022
stof
reviewed
Aug 30, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It occurred to me that with static lambdas we can achieve the same effect as with those public functions, except we don't leave them open for use by third parties.
As a side-note @mir-hossein pointed out to me that it's sometimes used in attacks to bypass restrictions, I am not entirely sure how this would work but I guess some filtering may allow calls to
includeFile()but not to include/require? In any case it seems like a good thing to close this potential vector.I would target 2.5.0 with this because it may cause disruption to people using this function (even tho they really should not..) for "legit" cases, so I'd rather not have this in a patch release.