Stephen,
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Stephen Reay <php-li...@koalephant.com>
wrote:
>
> On 11 Sep 2017, at 17:41, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Stephen Reay <php-li...@koalephant.com>
> wrote:
>
> On 11 Sep 2017, at 15:42, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net> wrote:
>
> It seems you haven't try to use filter module seriously.
> It simply does not have enough feature for input validations.
> e.g. You cannot validate "strings".
>
>
> Yasuo,
>
> I’ve asked previously what your proposal actually offers over the filter
> functions, and got no response, so please elaborate on this?
>
>
>
> Can you show a concrete example that cannot be validated in user land
> currently, using the filter functions as a base?
>
>
> FILTER_VALIDATE_REGEXP is not good enough simply.
> PCRE is known that it is vulnerable to regex DoS still. (as well as
> Oniguruma)
> Users should avoid regex validation whenever it is possible also to avoid
> various
> risks.
>
> In addition, current filter module does not provide nested array validation
> array key validation, etc. It's not true validation neither. It does not
> provide
> simple length, min/max validations. It does non explicit conversions (i.e.
> trim), etc.
> Length, min/max validation is mandatory validation if you would like to
> follow
> ISO 27000 requirement.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Yasuo Ohgaki
> yohg...@ohgaki.net
>
>
>
> So, you still didn’t actually provide an example. I *guess* you’re talking
> about character class validation or something else equally “simple”,
> because I can’t imagine what else would be a common enough case that you’d
> want to have built-in rules for, and that you wouldn’t internally use
> RegExp to test anyway.
>
Your request is like "Devil's Proof". Example code that cannot do things
with existing API cannot exist with meaningful manner. It can be explained
why it cannot, though. Try what "validate" string validator can do,
Then you'll see.
$input = [
'defined_but_should_not_exist' => 'Developer should not allow unwanted
value',
'_invalid_utf8_key_should_not_be_allowed_' => 'Developer should validate
key value as well',
'utf8_text' => 'Validator should be able to allow UTF-8 and validate its
validity at least',
'default_must_be_safe' => 'Crackers send all kinds of chars. CNTRL chars
must not be allowed by default',
'array' => [
'complex' => 1,
'nested' => 'any validation rule should be able to be applied',
'array' => 1,
'key_should_be_validated_also' => 1,
'array' => [
'any_num_of_nesting' => 'is allowed',
],
],
'array_num_elements_must_be_validated' => [
"a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f", "and so on", "values must be able to be
validated as user wants",
],
];
There is no STRING validation filter currently. This fact alone,
it could be said "filter cannot do string validation currently".
List of problems in current validation filter
- no STRING validator currently
- it allows any inputs by default
- it does not allow multiple rules that allows complex validation rules
for string
- it does not have callback validator
- it does not have key value validation (note: PHP's key could be binary)
- it does not validate num of elements in array.
- it cannot forbids unwanted elements in array.
- it cannot validate "char encoding".
- it does not enforce white listing.
- and so on
These are the list that "filter" cannot do.
Ok so we can’t use filter_var() rules to validate that a string field is an
> Alpha or AlphaNum, between 4 and 8 characters long (technically you could
> pass mb_strlen() to the INT filter with {min,max}_range options set to get
> the length validation, but I’ll grant you that *is* kind of a crappy
> workaround right now)
>
> Why not stop trying to re-invent every single feature already present in
> PHP (yes, I’ve been paying attention to all your other proposals), and just
> *add* the functionality that’s missing:
>
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/add_validate_functions_to_filter
It's _declined_. You should have supported this RFC if you would like to
add features to filter.
(I'm glad there is a new RFC supporter regardless of occasion)
I don't mind this result much.
Adding features to "filter" has some of shortcomings mentioned above
even with my proposal.
A `FILTER_VALIDATE_STRING` filter, with “Options” of `min` => ?int, `max`
> => ?int and “Flags” of FILTER_FLAG_ALPHA, FILTER_FLAG_NUMERIC (possibly a
> built in bit mask “FILTER_FLAG_ALPHANUMERIC” ?)
>
Simply adding these wouldn't work well as validator because
- Filter is designed for black listing
As you may know, all of security standards/guidelines require
- White listing for validation
We may change "filter", but it requires BC.
>
> Lastly: it may not be the format you personally want, but the filter
> extension *does* have the `filter_{input,var}_array` functions. Claiming
> something doesn’t exist because it doesn’t work exactly how you would like
> it to, makes you seem immature and petty, IMO.
>
Discussion is confusing because you ignore this RFC result.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/add_validate_functions_to_filter
This RFC proposes filter module improvement while keeping compatibility.
I understand your point. This exactly the same reason why I proposed
"improvement" at first, not new extension.
I don't understand why you insist already failed attempt repeatedly.
Would you like me to propose previous RFC again?
and implement "ture validation" with filter?
I don't mind implementing it if you would like to update the RFC and it
passes.
I must use "white list" as much as possible.
Regards,
P.S. "Filter" module is black listing module. "Validate" is white listing
module.
Even with BC, mixing them would result in confusing FLAGs and codes.
Codes may be cleaned up later, but FLAGs cannot.
We should consider this also.
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohg...@ohgaki.net
