Rule idea: Multiple parameters with the same name
See original GitHub issue_Issue originally created by user dune73 on date 2016-07-12 04:34:42. Link to original issue: https://github.com/SpiderLabs/owasp-modsecurity-crs/issues/400._
Can we do a rule that checks if a parameter name has been submitted multiple times? I think this should be possible with a counter as TX:paramcounter_<param-name>
and then check @gt
on TX:/^paramcounter_.*/
.
Naturally, this would be a PL3 or PL4 rule.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:17
Top Results From Across the Web
Rule idea: Multiple parameters with the same name · Issue #400
Can we do a rule that checks if a parameter name has been submitted multiple times? I think this should be possible with...
Read more >Rearrange code | IntelliJ IDEA Documentation - JetBrains
You can rearrange your code according to the arrangement rules set in the Code Style page of the Settings/Preferences dialog.
Read more >Correct way to pass multiple values for same parameter name ...
b) Use the ASCI encoding for a comma. c) Use a different character, ;|¦¬ , etc. d) State that a comma cannot be...
Read more >Effective Dart: Design
CONSIDER omitting the verb for a named boolean parameter. This refines the previous rule. For named parameters that are boolean, the name is...
Read more >Robot Framework User Guide
Although this section mostly uses term test, the same rules apply also when creating tasks. ... Named-only arguments; Arguments embedded to keyword names....
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
User dune73 commented on date 2016-07-12 14:08:24:
The overhead was another reason I would prefer to keep this at a higher PL. 😉
User marcstern commented on date 2016-07-12 07:43:58: