• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Extra headaches of securing XML
• From: Gregory Murphy <Gregory.Murphy@e...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:13:19 -0800 (PST)
• In-reply-to: <4069B802.9050302@d...>

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Rich Salz wrote:

> > and I'd bet a zillion bucks that there are awful vulnerabilities lurking 
> > in the cracks where nobody could possibly have thought to look.  -Tim
> 
> There are some that are inherent in XML itself: entities for example, 
> and the fact that there are no size limits (element name with 1e6 
> characters, or 1e6 attributes, or a document 1e6 elements deep). This 
> makes XML inherently more "dangerous" than classic binary formats like 
> ASN.1/DER.

Maybe SGML would be more secure? Hard limits on element name sizes and
attribute counts could be enforced in the SGML declaration.

// Gregory Murphy.  Isopaleocopria.

• References:
  • Re: Extra headaches of securing XML
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml databases
• Next by Date: RE: Extra headaches of securing XML
• Previous by thread: Re: Extra headaches of securing XML
• Next by thread: RE: Extra headaches of securing XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread