Skip to content
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

Adjust limit Parameter #15

Open
dkoeni opened this issue Feb 7, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Adjust limit Parameter #15

dkoeni opened this issue Feb 7, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
backlog Issue to be considered in the version after the next of the interface enhancement Issue requires improvements or additions to interface functionality

Comments

@dkoeni
Copy link
Contributor

dkoeni commented Feb 7, 2023

Right now, the limit parameter type is defined by an int32. This allows to request up to 2^32 list entries which are way more than would ever exist for a single user (e.g. payments of last year). This potentially inserts a security flaw like Heartbleed, if the API's backend is not able to handle that big numbers.
To avoid this (theoretic) risk one could strip this parameter to a usable max value. For example, the limit parameter could be extended by a maximum: 1000 value, which prevents this kind of attack.
The specific usable value, that is aligned to everyday use case, needs to be discussed with @six and other TPPs.

@dkoeni
Copy link
Contributor Author

dkoeni commented Jun 22, 2023

This discussion should be extended to the whole paging mechanism, because the right now implemented paging mechanism may not cover all use cases since it is not flexible enough.

As an idea the paging can be implemented similarly to the approach of the OpenWealth:
Cursors at Slack: https://slack.engineering/evolving-api-pagination-at-slack/

@juergen-petry
Copy link
Contributor

Feedback on behalf of UBS: If reliable, realistic values can be provided for the minimum and the maximum, then they should be specified for a matter of principle. However, we don’t see a concrete added value in terms of security.

@dkoeni dkoeni added the backlog Issue to be considered in the version after the next of the interface label Sep 19, 2023
@svenbiellmann svenbiellmann self-assigned this Sep 21, 2023
@svenbiellmann
Copy link
Contributor

We will need to define a procedure for how we deal with backlog items in general.

@svenbiellmann svenbiellmann added the enhancement Issue requires improvements or additions to interface functionality label Nov 17, 2023
@svenbiellmann svenbiellmann removed their assignment Dec 12, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backlog Issue to be considered in the version after the next of the interface enhancement Issue requires improvements or additions to interface functionality
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants