Gregory P. Smith <g...@krypto.org> added the comment: >> But using non-__builtin__.str objects (such as UserString) would expose the >> user to an attack? > > Not necessarily: only if they use these strings as dictionary keys, and only > if they do so in contexts where arbitrary user input is consumed. In these > cases, users need to rewrite their code to replace the keys. Using dictionary > wrappers (such as UserDict), this is possible using only local changes.
Could the AVL tree approach be extended to apply to dictionaries containing keys of any single type that supports comparison? That approach would autodetect UserString or similar and support it properly. I expect that dictionaries with keys of more than one type to be very rare and highly unlikely when it comes to values generated directly via user input. (and on top of all of this I believe we're all settled on having per interpreter hash randomization _as well_ in 3.3; but this AVL tree approach is one nice option for a backport to fix the major vulnerability) -gps ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue13703> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
