Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:15388 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 79086 invoked by uid 1010); 11 Mar 2005 22:14:49 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 79067 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2005 22:14:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pb1.pair.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Mar 2005 22:14:49 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 166.84.1.73 mail2.panix.com FreeBSD 4.8-5.1 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.3) Received: from ([166.84.1.73:55006] helo=mail2.panix.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity HEAD r(5124)) with SMTP id DB/68-31540-95812324 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:14:49 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77DAA6F8A for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:14:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from analysis@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p3/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id j2BMEep05257 for internals@lists.php.net; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:14:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:14:40 -0500 To: PHP Internals List Message-ID: <20050311221440.GA12230@panix.com> References: <4231F330.6000705@prohost.org> <20050311212223.GA10370@panix.com> <42320D59.6010507@prohost.org> <20050311213710.GA29902@panix.com> <423210F9.905@prohost.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <423210F9.905@prohost.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] HALT Patch From: danielc@analysisandsolutions.com (Daniel Convissor) On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:43:21PM -0500, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > Daniel Convissor wrote: > >Interesting. I'm wondering about the security implications of this. > >This makes it very easy to use PHP as a means to propogate all sorts of > >nasty things. > > You can already use PHP to propagate all sorts of nasty things, nothing > changes in this respect. > > >Well, people could even do that today in one script by > >setting a variable to a base64 encoded string then decoding it. > > Sure, BUT this approach makes the final file approximately %30 larger ... snip... No doubt. My second point was more to diminish my initial assertion, not to diminish the validity of your patch. Thanks, --Dan -- T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y data intensive web and database programming http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/ 4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409