Fix an XSS in independent_publisher_replytocom() #200
Merged
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
|
@henryk Merged. Thank you! I'm not sure how I missed that one. I'm going through the whole codebase right now to see if I missed any others like this. Cheers! |
|
I reviewed all 95 |
This pull request was closed.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There's a bug that enables a cross-site scripting vulnerability in independent_publisher_replytocom(). If a post page is viewed with something like
?replytocom=42<fnord/>appended to the URL the<fnord/>will be output verbatim into the resulting HTML, which could end very badly, if more evil HTML code was inserted.The shortest fix is to just cast the ID to integer, since it's a number, and that will remove any injected code. In general though: Every time you
echoin PHP, you should be absolutely certain that nothing bad can happen. There may be other instances of this in the code, I didn't look and only found this one by accident.