Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #33384
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.javascript |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 19:47 -0700 |
| References | <58a53166-53fb-4974-9264-d73f26a0a549@googlegroups.com> <race-20170523234936@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <2282449.Lt9SDvczpP@PointedEars.de> <4b95cc67-488f-4582-92ab-02fdf1c2124b@googlegroups.com> <og2q99$bma$1@news.albasani.net> |
| Message-ID | <65cc7b61-e8ff-4138-939c-30a214c119e4@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| Subject | Re: JavaScript code security |
| From | justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> |
On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 10:14:07 PM UTC-4, Stefan Weiss wrote: > justaguy wrote: > >> Stefan Ram wrote: > >>> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX I on TABLE0( FIELD0 ); > > > > This approach would generate a db insertion error. I'd prefer to > > implement server side duplicate data validation to this method. But as > > mentioned earlier I'd prefer not to implement server side validation. > > Of the three methods to prevent duplicate records mentioned in this thread, > only the JavaScript part is optional. If you are at all concerned with > security (and the title of your question suggests that you are), input > validation on the server side is a must. This is not negotiable. The unique > constraint in the database is an added safety net (which you should also > use). It will typically not activate during normal operation, but when it > does, it can save your data integrity. > > Relying on client side validation alone is the software equivalent of this: > https://i.imgur.com/bYiIN56.jpg > > > Given your description, it's impossible to say what caused your duplicate > entries. If I had to guess, I would put my money on > > 1) you hit "reload" after a form submit We can eliminate this one because after form submission it's automatically redirected to another page (eliminating the opportunity of "reload", hence, room for creating duplicate records). > 2) you made a mistake in your client side checks This web app been tested on two instances (two servers), the client side check works fine. Thus, we can eliminate this speculation as well. > ........ > ........ > 42017) somebody hacked your server and decided to mess with you by > inserting a duplicate record This is a possibility. Since about a week ago, a critical file on the AMAZON AWS server was mysteriously removed. > ........ > 43501) aliens >
Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:02 -0700
Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:11 -0700
Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:56 -0700
Re: JavaScript code security Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-24 02:44 +0100
Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 19:06 -0700
Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-05-24 09:11 +0200
Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 05:56 -0700
Re: JavaScript code security Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-05-29 14:57 -0400
Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-05-30 09:41 +0200
Re: JavaScript code security Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-23 10:53 +0200
Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-06-23 13:38 +0200
Re: JavaScript code security Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-24 14:28 +0100
Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-05-24 18:07 +0200
Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 06:01 -0700
Re: JavaScript code security John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-05-24 14:19 +0100
Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 10:01 -0700
Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-05-24 19:18 +0200
Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 11:39 -0700
Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-05-24 23:07 +0200
Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 14:26 -0700
Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-05-25 16:26 +0200
Re: JavaScript code security Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-24 01:12 +0200
Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:15 -0700
Re: JavaScript code security Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 04:14 +0200
Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 19:47 -0700
Re: JavaScript code security Myers <xdaamanx@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 07:54 -0700
Re: JavaScript code security Myers <xdaamanx@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 07:55 -0700
csiph-web