Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of curt.arnld@gmail.com designates
 209.85.210.192 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=jJZYuwVFax5Xae1y3zRZWZgAThC2QFjMceEPc5YcM+QuC62MFPTle3InRGpAS5owhl
         kKjhagtBkccjMBhvpKBkYJ4XAzu5oIQDGJ3gHWMdLFWqMj4/70UHa9tquomdOf8m3g7A
         yAFFTw5G6Eadyjq3pZ8Fo/gNtsDNSOI3IMYWM=
Sender: Curt Arnold <curt.arnld@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Subject: Re: Second call for objections releasing 0.10
From: Curt Arnold <carnold@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090920130655.GG29736@tumbolia.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:08:02 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <5D7D20B1-88BF-48BC-998C-27231663DB92@apache.org>
References: <20090920130655.GG29736@tumbolia.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org


On Sep 20, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Noah Slater wrote:

> Hey,
>
> I've been following the first thread, but am unsure where we all  
> stand. This is
> my second call for objections following our previous discussion. Do  
> we all feel
> ready to prepare and vote on the 0.10 release now?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- 
> Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


The "invalid json allowed into CouchDB" thread on user@couchdb.apache.org 
  appears to offer a means of gaming a system to place data in a  
document that would be seen by CouchDB, but could be hidden from  
clients.

I think the issue needs to be resolved before cutting 0.10.  It does  
appear to be a security issue, but one which the resolution could  
negatively impact some fraction of apps that depended on the  
behavior.  If we address it before 0.10, we could just reject the  
document as invalid.  As a security patch in a 0.10.1 or so, we may  
feel compelled to try to merge the data to preserve the rare app that  
depended on the function.

My initial opinion is that any document with multiple occurrences of a  
property should be rejected and it could just be weaved into the patch  
for COUCHDB-345.