[Json] Security considerations
Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sun, 06 October 2013 06:11 UTC
Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 6F91921F9E43 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 23:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 0eyHkOQiDeeq for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com (mail-vc0-f174.google.com [209.85.220.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B8C21F9E40 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 23:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id gd11so2440340vcb.33 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 23:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=QguM0JWQBcnXoY+BtLass6dxE7Dq7oUS45fDJFRvZ3U=; b=aSSmHdXdb3Bn/PoSMuHUebMBqIbrirBzFlQSkjXgW9FRxddr7eiWKGeOeEOJa56Azp 6tq5LvGxwRk7PHda2mHh7z41FWSBHHamUc3gUPKk/LmE7Wnlkg+OYOo33G9ykdyZbaYK RbfTzxWcK5HqzSy0+6kTabWiKw9QY7Y0N7fXnjn/WGTsEx6VXhfMNZVD+l2IBwyWmL8N u6u7TGlZkARxcVv+sUsC8UnrEj02QzMUm5bx7v4Qvpqrt2RB4k4oZL3iyPMXlsBuH/Fs CVG7Lm89DLaHjadDfbcBGOqdi2dHay5NKfTgsddEtpJhB8oM7rKTDPWRnZs8iync4Iuz VMnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn9sjZJq1baI4tS6pSNaiNbRAeE+vMInCDnc1rJVPDTBvL3Hmn2l7lbmGJckVHXTpElPa3V
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.103.35 with SMTP id ft3mr17296632vdb.5.1381039852086; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 23:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 23:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 23:10:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iuLBDQd1a8D1vJXg4hUUQf6hBgs7vEsXZHLX_nrWE6aRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff24d9bcdff6e04e80c65ae"
Subject: [Json] Security considerations
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: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 06:11:04 -0000
It dawns on me that the #1 security consideration every web programmer learns, when using JSON, is “You could parse it with eval() but DON’T DO THAT”. So should we include that in the -bis Security Considerations section?
- [Json] Security considerations Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Security considerations Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] Security considerations John Levine
- Re: [Json] Security considerations Matthew Morley
- Re: [Json] Security considerations R S
- Re: [Json] Security considerations John Cowan
- Re: [Json] Security considerations Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Security considerations R S
- Re: [Json] Security considerations Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] Security considerations Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Security considerations Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] Security considerations John Cowan
- Re: [Json] Security considerations Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Security considerations R S
- Re: [Json] Security considerations Martin J. Dürst