> On 12 Sep 2017, at 04:07, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net> wrote: > > Stephen, > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Stephen Reay <php-li...@koalephant.com > <mailto:php-li...@koalephant.com>> wrote: > >> On 11 Sep 2017, at 17:41, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net >> <mailto:yohg...@ohgaki.net>> wrote: >> >> Hi Stephen, >> >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Stephen Reay <php-li...@koalephant.com >> <mailto:php-li...@koalephant.com>> >> wrote: >> >>> On 11 Sep 2017, at 15:42, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net >>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > <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 > <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 <mailto:yohg...@ohgaki.net> > >
I was going to give a lot of detailed replies inline, but I’ve come to the realisation its pointless with you. You really respond to what people say, you just use their comments as jumping off points to re-post your same little rant, ad nauseam. So here’s the summary. Don’t both replying, because I won’t be reading it. - I never asked for a working code example that is impossible with the current extension. I asked for a simple example of what you wanted to achieve. - More than half the “issues” you claim with the filter extension, are only “valid” if you agree that it needs to do complex array structure validation. I do not agree with this. Userland can iterate an array of rules/input and validate quite easily. - The *actual* issues with the filter extension could be solved by improving/adding filters. - I already agreed that a string based filter (to test character class and min/max length, etc) would be a good addition. Continuing to bring it up when others have acknowledged something doesn’t help your case, at all. - ACCEPTING that string validation is missing, number/bool/<complex string: url, email, etc> is still whitelisting. I don’t know how they’re implemented in C. Maybe that needs improvement. But a rule saying “validate that $X is a number between 10 and 100” or “validate that $Y is an email address) is whitelisting.
