We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
box_source() seems like a way to facilitate a security breach, given the possibility that the remote file may not be secured.
box_source()
Thinking SQL injection, but using files.
If it were only me, I would consider a fast-track to deprecation (not to be considered before 0.3.6 release).
Are there users?
Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think of it as a shortcut for the use case of sourcing shared code. Sure you can source bad things, but I don't think sourcing itself is bad.
I'm not opposed to leaving this up to see if any users find it. Maybe we put a questioning tag on it in 3.6?
Sorry, something went wrong.
For me, the danger is that the code that seems too easy for the "sourced" code to change without the person running box_source() knowing about it.
That said, I am all for the "questioning" tag.
No branches or pull requests
box_source()
seems like a way to facilitate a security breach, given the possibility that the remote file may not be secured.Thinking SQL injection, but using files.
If it were only me, I would consider a fast-track to deprecation (not to be considered before 0.3.6 release).
Are there users?
Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: