On 2012-01-13 11:20, Lennart Regebro wrote:
The vulnerability is basically only in the dictionary you keep the form data you get from a request.
I'd have to disagree with this statement. The vulnerability is anywhere that creates a dictionary (or set) from attacker-provided keys. That would include HTTP headers, RFC822-family subheaders and parameters, the environ, input taken from JSON or XML, and so on - and indeed hash collision attacks are not at all web-specific.
The problem with having two dict implementations is that a caller would have to tell libraries that use dictionaries which implementation to use. So for example an argument would have to be passed to json.load[s] to specify whether the input was known-sane or potentially hostile.
Any library could ever use dictionaries to process untrusted input *or any library that used another library that did* would have to pass such a flag through, which would quickly get very unwieldy indeed... or else they'd have to just always use safedict, in which case we're in pretty much the same position as we are with changing dict anyway.
-- And Clover mailto:a...@doxdesk.com http://www.doxdesk.com/ gtalk:chat?jid=bobi...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
