Hapi not rejecting non-URL-encoded data on route that allows 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded' content type

[memughal]

I am trying the following test and I am sending non-urlencoded data to a route that 'allows' url encoded data. Since content type of this request is set to 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded', it should encode the payload but it does not.

            context('with invalid payload (not URL-encoded)', () => {
                it('returns 400', () => {
                    return server.inject({
                        url: '/books',
                        method: 'POST',
                        headers: {
                            'Content-Type': 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded',
                            Authorization: internals.headers.Authorization
                        },
                        payload: 'title=💣'
                    }).then(res => {
                        expect(res.statusCode).to.equal(400);
                    });
                });
            });

and the following routes config:

       this.server.route({
            method: 'POST',
            path: '/books',
            config: {
                handler: (request, reply) => {
                    this.handleBooks(request, response);
                },
                description: 'Create a new book',
                payload: {
                    allow: 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'
                },
                validate: {
                    payload: {
                        title: Joi.string().required().description('Title of the new book')
                    }
                }
            }
        })

This results in 200 status code instead of 400, since routes should not let users post not encoded characters by default.

Context

• node version: v7.1.0
• hapi version: 16.0.2
• os: MacOS Sierra v 10.12

[hueniverse]

We use node's querystring to parse the payload. If it passes that, we use it. While you are correct that this payload violates the spec, I don't see a point in working to restrict that.

[amoskopp]

@hueniverse Every piece of software that takes input contains a de facto recognizer for accepting valid input and rejecting invalid input. Parser differentials – when two programs parse things differently, one accepting data and another rejecting it – silently invalidate assumptions programmers have about data safety and can lead to security issues. I think a good example of what this can result in is the Android master key vulnerability.

For more information why accepting invalid input is a bad idea, read The Seven Turrets of Babel and other LANGSEC papers.

[amoskopp]

@hueniverse please reopen.

[sirgallifrey]

Some relevant info on querystring:

querystring.unescape() v7.4.0

The querystring.unescape() method is used by querystring.parse() and is generally not expected to be used directly. It is exported primarily to allow application code to provide a replacement decoding implementation if necessary by assigning querystring.unescape to an alternative function.
By default, the querystring.unescape() method will attempt to use the JavaScript built-in decodeURIComponent() method to decode. If that fails, a safer equivalent that does not throw on malformed URLs will be used.

So in theory you can make your own querystring.unescape implementation which will not fallback to a safer decode. https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/lib/querystring.js#L90

But I don't know if this you give the 400 error you are expecting or a 500 o even more nasty error...
This is something you cant test or investigate... And one more thing, if you want this behavior only in routes with allow: 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded' then I don't know if this is a good workaround...

[hueniverse]

@nmoskopp I don't make decision based on general concepts. If you want to make the case we should write our own query string parser, you would need to be a lot more specific.

The reasons I closed this issue are:

• I have no interest in writing my own query string parser.
• By using node's parser as-is, we are matching the expectations of node developers already familiar with it. Those expectations are far more important to meet than comparing a hapi server to some completely different stack.
• Clients can still pass invalid inputs properly encoded (e.g. 'title=%F0%9F%92%A3'). The result request.payload will be identical. Your application still has to perform the exact same validation logic.

If you really need a spec compliant parser you can solve this issue by writing your own. I am happy to add a note to the documentation to state that the node parser is very flexible in its interpretation.

And last, if you feel strongly about this, I would suggest opening an issue directly with node core. After all, it's their issue.