Re: [Json] Proposed minimal change for duplicate names in objects

Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@gmail.com> Mon, 08 July 2013 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <tsaloranta@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326EA11E80AE for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rPiZ6sSr4muj for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x235.google.com (mail-we0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2F7911E80D9 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id p58so4224798wes.12 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 16:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Fb/JRwDt6yvUIauHfZKzGn60Jfys691XXpKBOy7103k=; b=sPe+VziHo+6shM7FLP8SW/TpaPqHy5Ql+AkJC6BBVMqD7qwDIzZDT6NDsjQcPsF7jK 1FK0dD8r5ED0H99EJ+UvM+g0JfESYSNlo8Kf2xzc87/SQO2gJBQ4cNeJNXZWABUQ2riE i7+vlGGM6JRxMnuy+cI5HG4IjqSj412xOOaSlZ83MhOz4Pb9xnK42gB+srOaAv+ZkqbS KEeXvbfZyMrXOzfJWEumCKklg0axYZAKJF7ksqnTcqY5TtI3fRlWaQXYIxqypBzOdXON cpf8x6jMuGu2U+vGMTax+lvQVOzaNJXFYWuiMtaEkKIdEdKrYbG+ANQY1NhJG30r3W0x UP8Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.179.129 with SMTP id dg1mr13857151wjc.38.1373325888845; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 16:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.34.199 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7adjt8hkf0lrirnloid2nnvg3ad2i7070k@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <CAHBU6itdi3B1rWv2TiOYhL1QuOVxrFKt7OTWRoG+6TgV8Bc_uw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOgOYA5fas0oomF5amjP1bR5F=0+uve7mFD4=FMoEV7sWg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGrxA24y4D62XY-YnbDvKVwNKUickcEFxv1FUhc_yqG4KP-m-w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iuWLcXv0QKR=Ow8gkzoZLmoZjqYCqXDXR8FLVb7w7M2Tw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOic41TWGhVJFwv1o64GarZhM0mqoF1TBruJ9OkCQbqijA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGrxA257rS4Q=HH2GEvU6Skqk_pqD-hxVAekzfGUQ8XKfE2QcQ@mail.gmail.com> <7adjt8hkf0lrirnloid2nnvg3ad2i7070k@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:24:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGrxA27OiuemNZw7j0oiL=MpQiqF1Sv339CAk6cx-X-tqjrWPA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d194ec400d404e108592a
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed minimal change for duplicate names in objects
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 23:24:51 -0000

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Tatu Saloranta wrote:
> >If this aspect was lost due to clarification for solving a problem that
> has
> >more to do with concerns for _possible_ security issues, that would be
> sad.
> >
> >End users rarely have real need for minimal-state parsing. It is
> >framework-builders -- such as, say Solr, Elastic Search, Hadoop, JAX-RS
> >implementations (these for Java, similar for other platforms) -- that care
> >as performance implications there have more effect. And they are the ones
> >that have legitimate use for minimal-state components.
>
> Note that the performance implications can easily become security impli-
> cations. A naive implementation of checking for duplicates may well be
> vulnerable to algorithmic complexity attacks causing denial of service
> (by using maliciously crafted input that exhibits worst-case behavior).
>
> http://events.ccc.de/congress/2011/Fahrplan/events/4680.en.html for in-
> stance surprisingly showed that many common environments had failed to
> pay attention when the problem was addressed in Perl eight years prior.
>
>
Yes, good point.

-+ Tatu +-