Message161278
| Author | orsenthil |
|---|---|
| Recipients | ezio.melotti, ncoghlan, orsenthil, r.david.murray, zulla |
| Date | 2012-05-21.15:23:15 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1337613796.63.0.669869448982.issue14036@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
pass_to_cython(urlparse("http://google.de:999999**999999[to be calculated]").port)
is no different than sending
pass_to_cython(999999**999999[to be calculated])
In that case, would the former make a security loop hole in urlparse? Looks pretty contrived to me as an example for .port bug.
However, I agree with one point in your assertion, namely that port be checked that it is within the range integer >= 1 and <= 65535. If it is not, return None as a response in port. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-05-21 15:23:16 | orsenthil | set | recipients: + orsenthil, ncoghlan, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray, zulla |
| 2012-05-21 15:23:16 | orsenthil | set | messageid: <1337613796.63.0.669869448982.issue14036@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012-05-21 15:23:16 | orsenthil | link | issue14036 messages |
| 2012-05-21 15:23:15 | orsenthil | create | |