4 ms·
Agreed that it's malformed. My point was more that I'm curious how many other libraries fail badly when confronted with an unexpectedly large port. It's the edg
by Smerity 12y ago
Agreed that it's malformed. My point was more that I'm curious how many other libraries fail badly when confronted with an unexpectedly large port. It's the edge cases / "no-one would ever be silly enough to do that" that quite frequently lead to security issues =]
- jlblatt 12y agoYes, that's why I feel like this is more significant than a simple crash at first glance- no one would purposefully craft a 256+ unchecked character URL, unless they are being malicious, in which case they absolutely will craft a 256+ unchecked character URL.
- userbinator 12y agoURLs can definitely get rather long if they contain lots of query data, and the de-facto limit seems to be around 2KB[1]. It's still not acceptable for such URLs to crash the browser though. [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/417142/what-is-the-maximum-length-of-a-url-in-different-browsers http://stackoverflow.com/questions/417142/what-is-the-maximu...