Data uri validation#1510
Conversation
|
Hey, just a word to tell you I'm not ignoring you. I see value in this one but the 2nd regex opens up for a ReDoS vulnerability, so I'm scratching my head with a few others to find a way out, but maybe there's none, so we might need to go for a half validation there. Just let us think about this one for a while, but if you have a solution I'd be glad to read it. |
|
HI! First of all, thank you for your comment, never heard of ReDoS before ^^' And I think I see why you said the second regex can be an evil one. I must admit somthing: I haven't write this one by myself. I have just copied the base64 one just before you can find here: 14d4319#diff-d91d658f77d8b9da32acdedc3b5950d0R451 So, now did the two are evils regexp, or the two are good? The difference is if the I cannot say if this is a really good idea or not. I looked at the pull request #1156 adding the evil regex and see not comment about it. I add a commit avoiding the evil request and requiring the padding (I have no idea what it is) allowing us to maybe merge this request. Maybe the pull request #1156 need to be challenged? |
|
(I can remove this commit on demand if you think the regex is not evil). |
|
Oh... That regex was already there then, ahah... 😅 |
|
Option added, exactly the same way the base64 option. |
|
I know this is not easy to be a maintainer (I used to be a 3000+ stars project main maintainer). But no news about this PR. Is it forgotten (so there is ping)? Or should I modify something? Thank you! edit: Or simply not an important PR, understandable. |
|
Thanks. And sorry for the forgotten documentation update. |
|
This thread has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Please open a new issue for related bugs or questions following the new issue template instructions. |
Hi there!
Maybe you'll find this completely useless, or, I hope, useful, but in many of my projects, I use the data URI format to send pictures between my clients and my APIs.
This format is not so simple to validate, and just a regex is not sufficient. This is why I propose to add this validation:
string().dataUri().I do not now what order may be the best, so I put it just near the
base64as the use may be for some people quite the same.Do not hesitate if you have any questions!
Thank you!