🥅 Validate response literal byte size format#681
Merged
Conversation
This guards against numbers like `99999999999999999999`. This isn't a security issue unless `max_response_size` is `nil`. But it's reasonable to block too large numbers in both the response reader and the response parser, regardless of that config setting. Note also that this still _allows_ strings like `000000000000000001`. This is goofy, but it's how the RFCs are written!
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This guards against numbers like
99999999999999999999.This isn't a security issue (unless
max_response_sizeis set tonil). But it's reasonable to block too large numbers in both the response reader and the response parser, regardless of that config setting.Note also that this still allows strings like
000000000000000001. This is goofy, but it's how the RFCs are written! (See #680.)