Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:116886 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 38586 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2022 13:34:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2022 13:34:30 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6791C180382 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 06:44:56 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS199118 195.10.208.0/24 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mout-b-110.mailbox.org (mout-b-110.mailbox.org [195.10.208.55]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 06:44:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp202.mailbox.org (smtp202.mailbox.org [80.241.60.245]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-b-110.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Jcvnf1sl4zQkHM; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:44:54 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=woltlab.com; s=MBO0001; t=1642430692; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=k95Cb/pyenoVudseMcNf2QRGOoyVrhsihpyUv/ldbKM=; b=pdHzSWjZPBbJNv+qRZGKu1hRoN6KkHvqF/v9h3ml5nVkopG05OHiP6MvX4s74PkyeSV2cD 7vKYT6mCYFqmZEsIZZteMQYa94PLi18lUozphQoO06kAMMoMvnQ1T6MHt4FthbmM1h97gq rLFccNv7gAIkgZ0w2ohE9iZZzwqVPUpIa+zxj4BPfUgcYvQk6u0v5CZjFpDIOTiN5oZ7jD JIOulD4GgHyFlSBnt+0JGQoa2oIAJH05JLJa26cD00CtgNRG9EtF0uUDb/wSym1qtbd/io Jq3wZNTyr+JE6JInAj1IXBN2R1LHOBdfxKC04eLP5wyT0dkGIzufMJd0dALUwA== To: Benjamin Eberlei Cc: PHP internals References: Message-ID: <2aa2f33f-1662-163c-d060-ece9326d17fd@woltlab.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:44:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC [Discussion]: Redacting parameters in back traces From: duesterhus@woltlab.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=c3=bcsterhus=2c_WoltLab_GmbH?=) Hi Benjamin On 1/15/22 7:07 PM, Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > I believe it wouldn't hurt the RFC to add more words around the fact that > stacktraces are often sent to third party services (Exception Tracking > software) and as such a redaction of the parameters would be powerful for > additional redaction of credit cards, email addresses and other personal > data. The example with PDO::__construct is an obvious choice to redact > passwords, but application level data is a second source of input that is > critical to redact. > Thank you for the feedback. I've expanded (and hopefully clarified) the "Introduction" section in version 1.2: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/redact_parameters_in_back_traces?rev=1642064843&do=diff Best regards Tim Düsterhus Developer WoltLab GmbH -- WoltLab GmbH Nedlitzer Str. 27B 14469 Potsdam Tel.: +49 331 96784338 duesterhus@woltlab.com www.woltlab.com Managing director: Marcel Werk AG Potsdam HRB 26795 P