4 ms·
Maybe one showing that the change doesn't make it worse. Here's the code change: - <a class="item muted sidebar-item-link" href=${$(this).data('href')}> +
by kstrauser 6mo ago
Maybe one showing that the change doesn't make it worse. Here's the code change:
- <a class="item muted sidebar-item-link" href=${$(this).data('href')}>
+ <a class="item muted sidebar-item-link" href="${$(this).data('href')}">
I know zero about this code path, but suppose it's expected that `${$(this).data('href')}` is already a properly quoted value, like `"https://example.com https://example.com"`. Then the first line expands to:
<a class="item muted sidebar-item-link" href="https://example.com">
and the second expands to:
<a class="item muted sidebar-item-link" href=""https://example.com"">
which would have all kinds of room for mischief. Or suppose the template engine auto-quotes values that it injects, so the quotes aren't necessary at all, which is a pretty common approach. The point is that you don't randomly want to throw quotes into HTML or single quotes into SQL just for giggles. You have to write tests demonstrating that the existing common use cases still work after the change, even if it's simply adding 4 quotes.
- MajesticHobo2 6mo agoI'd say also add a test that shows the HTML injection (which spurred the PR) isn't possible. Given an attacker-controlled URL of: foo onclick the following shouldn't render: <a class="item muted sidebar-item-link" href=foo onclick> The following should: <a class="item muted sidebar-item-link" href="foo onclick">
- kstrauser 6mo agoOh, for sure! That'd end the conversation: "your change breaks the existing tests. Fix that and we'll re-consider."
- pabs3 6mo agoI wonder why they didn't change it to use DOM APIs instead. Related comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47945472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47945472