Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

require recipients to avoid smuggling/splitting attacks when processing … #905

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Jul 22, 2021

Conversation

royfielding
Copy link
Member

… an ambiguous message framing

fixes #879

Copy link
Member

@mnot mnot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Let's see if we can get a requirement on HTTP/1.0 through...

@wtarreau
Copy link

Looks perfect to me, I particularly appreciate the explanation of the issues, which are helpful for implementations to understand what to protect against and how to act the best in a given context, thank you Roy! @mnot the 1.0 part is already explained there and for me the whole problem is covered by @royfielding 's proposal. Let's merge it as is, it's a significant improvement over previous versions.

@reschke reschke self-requested a review July 22, 2021 12:00
Copy link
Contributor

@reschke reschke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we need to list that as change from 7230?

@royfielding royfielding merged commit b2bcac9 into master Jul 22, 2021
@royfielding royfielding deleted the fielding-i879 branch July 22, 2021 15:52
reschke added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 25, 2021
reschke added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 25, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Should servers interpret Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 requests?
4 participants