On Sat, Jul 4, 2026 at 4:21 PM Jordan Peck <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Mike, > I added a test for a property change containing the slave URL and it > was silently rewritten to the master URL without errors. So this is > the worst case, because it's silent data corruption. > Okay, so this is what I feared with issue SVN-3445. (Thanks for whipping up these tests, by the way!) I notice that I (softly) proposed the following in that same issue[1]: Have the slave server drop a header into the proxied request that the > master > looks for. The header tells the master server what the slave's > "localpath" > is. The master, upon seeing that header, then uses the slave's > localpath > instead of its own paths when generating responses. Is a header which > can > essentially cause a server to lie about its locations a bad/insecure > thing? ... but I don't see any serious discussion about it in the issue itself. The idea here being (if I can try to tap into my 17-years-ago-headstate...) that as the slave proxies a request through to the master, it tells the master "pretend, while generating protocol paths in your responses, that you're *me*". I *think* that with such a setup, we don't need the content filters at all? -- Mike [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-3445?focusedCommentId=14928254&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-14928254
