Project

General

Profile

Actions
Copy link

Bug #9023

closed

is_fqdn() validation

Added by Nano Caiordo about 6 years ago. Updated over 4 years ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Renato Botelho
Category:
Web Interface
Target version:
2.5.0
Start date:
10/07/2018
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Estimated time:
Plus Target Version:
Release Notes:
Affected Version:
Affected Architecture:

Description

Hello,

current validation doesn't follow any RFC guideline and it's pretty much broken.

var_dump(is_fqdn('a!@#$%^&0.b%^a1'));
bool(true)

A patch is ready and I'll generate the push request right after this gets submitted.

Files

is_fqdn.txt (2.61 KB) is_fqdn.txt speed and domain validation comparison file Nano Caiordo, 11/30/2018 03:47 AM
Actions
Copy link
 #1

Updated by Nano Caiordo about 6 years ago

Ulterior information on this patch:

As per php.net/manual/en/filter.filters.validate.php: FILTER_VALIDATE_DOMAIN

Validates domain names against RFC 1034, RFC 1035, RFC 952, RFC 1123, RFC 2732, RFC 2181, and RFC 1123. Optional flag FILTER_FLAG_HOSTNAME adds ability to specifically validate hostnames (they must start with an alphanumberic character and contain only alphanumerics or hyphens).

filter_var() returns false on failure or the entire unmodified input string on success, on this the patch removes any valid trailing dot before counting parts.
Sure the patch could be modified to trim and count on success only.

Above RFCs are pretty old but updated only for domain DNS names, records with underscore, and SMTP mail transport specifications.
This patch will not validate a domain DNS name such as _tcp.example.test, as I suppose is_fqdn() target RFC 1123.

bool(true) 'sub.domain.test.'
bool(true) 'sub.domain.test'
bool(true) 'xn--sub.xn--domain.test'

bool(false) 'domain.test.'
bool(false) 'domain.test'
bool(false) '-sub.domain.test'
bool(false) '_sub.domain.test'
bool(false) 's_ub.domain.test'
Actions
Copy link
 #2

Updated by Nano Caiordo about 6 years ago

I'm testing via System Patcher since https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/pull/3998 went into approved/needs testing and so far unbound reloads are quite faster, placebo effect? Could anyone confirm?

As a reference I'm also adding here a speed and domain validation comparison file over thousands of iterations (cannot quite remember the exact number).

Actions
Copy link
 #3

Updated by Renato Botelho over 5 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Feedback
  • Assignee set to Renato Botelho
  • Priority changed from High to Normal
  • Target version set to 2.5.0
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

PR has been merged. Thanks!

Actions
Copy link
 #4

Updated by Jim Pingle over 5 years ago

  • Category set to Web Interface
Actions
Copy link
 #5

Updated by Viktor Gurov over 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved

tested on 2.5.0.a.20200424.1759

looks good:

domain.test. true
domain.test true
_sub.domain.test true
s_ub.domain.test true
xn--sub.xn--domain.test true
sub.domain.test true
sub.domain.test. true
123domain.test true
domain123.test true
domain123.test123 false
domain-.test false
domain.test- false
-sub.domain.test false

Actions
Copy link

Also available in: Atom PDF