-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Sanitize fields better #2
Comments
In general you should never rely on client-side sanitization, since that can easily be overridden. See it more as a convenience for people. Also, some browsers don't support more advanced sanitization and will in that case fall back to basic text inputs with no sanitization. |
Yes, I mingled together these aspects a bit. I was just confused that when I first tested it, the url field required a url to be entered, but now it takes whatever I input there. But I did not consider that sanitization in terms of security, but rather making sure I have to doublecheck less when copying the data to the csv file. But do you think there is any need for further sanitization for security reasons? |
No, since all of that is just sent via email, someone will have a read over it anyways, so it seems absolutely fine the way it is. |
What degree of sinitization do we need?
Although I set field types, it is possible to enter whatever in the url fiel. Why?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: