sahvx655-wq opened a new pull request, #432:
URL: https://github.com/apache/commons-validator/pull/432
`isValid` returns as soon as it sees a `file:` scheme with a blank
authority, and that return sits above the line calling `isValidPath`,
`isValidQuery` and `isValidFragment`. Every ordinary file URL has no authority,
since `URI.getRawAuthority()` is null for `file:/x` and `file:///x` alike, so
for a validator configured with the file scheme that whole stage is
unreachable. I went looking after checking whether the percent-encoded
traversal guard from VALIDATOR-383 held across schemes:
`isValid("file:///../../etc/passwd")` and
`isValid("file:///..%2f..%2fetc/passwd")` both come back true, while the
byte-identical path written under an authority,
`file://localhost/../../etc/passwd`, is correctly rejected. The option flags
behave the same way, so `file:///tmp/a//b` passes with `ALLOW_2_SLASHES` off
and `file:///tmp/x#frag` passes with `NO_FRAGMENTS` on.
The special case exists only to excuse a file URL from carrying an
authority, so I have narrowed it to skip the authority check alone rather than
to leave the method. Keeping the decision in `isValid` means every scheme
reaches the same three per-part checks; moving containment out to callers would
leave the hole open for anyone who configures the file scheme, and an
application that normalises a validated `file:` URL into a filesystem path is
exactly where that gets expensive. One deliberate behaviour change worth
flagging: an opaque URI such as `file:etc/passwd` has a null raw path and is
now rejected, which is what `http:example.com` already does. The existing file
expectations in `testValidator276`, `testValidator391FAILS` and
`testValidator391OK` are unchanged, and both added tests fail without the
runtime change.
Before you push a pull request, review this list:
- [x] Read the [contribution guidelines](CONTRIBUTING.md) for this project.
- [ ] Read the [ASF Generative Tooling
Guidance](https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html) if you use
Artificial Intelligence (AI).
- [ ] I used AI to create any part of, or all of, this pull request. Which
AI tool was used to create this pull request, and to what extent did it
contribute?
- [x] Run a successful build using the default
[Maven](https://maven.apache.org/) goal with `mvn`; that's `mvn` on the command
line by itself.
- [x] Write unit tests that match behavioral changes, where the tests fail
if the changes to the runtime are not applied. This may not always be possible,
but it is a best practice.
- [x] Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand
what the pull request does, how, and why.
- [x] Each commit in the pull request should have a meaningful subject line
and body. Note that a maintainer may squash commits during the merge process.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
