Author orsenthil
Recipients ezio.melotti, ncoghlan, orsenthil, r.david.murray, zulla
Date 2012-05-21.15:23:15
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1337613796.63.0.669869448982.issue14036@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
pass_to_cython(urlparse("http://google.de:999999**999999[to be calculated]").port)

is no different than sending

pass_to_cython(999999**999999[to be calculated])

In that case, would the former make a security loop hole in urlparse? Looks pretty contrived to me as an example for .port bug. 

However, I agree with one point in your assertion, namely that port be checked that it is within the range integer >= 1 and <= 65535. If it is not, return None as a response in port.
History
Date User Action Args
2012-05-21 15:23:16orsenthilsetrecipients: + orsenthil, ncoghlan, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray, zulla
2012-05-21 15:23:16orsenthilsetmessageid: <1337613796.63.0.669869448982.issue14036@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-05-21 15:23:16orsenthillinkissue14036 messages
2012-05-21 15:23:15orsenthilcreate