Description
Hi there,
I think this might belong against HTTP::Headers::Fast
, but it's popping up in a client's Plack stack, so I thought I would start here first. This is a small test case:
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use Test::Most;
use Plack::Response;
use Plack::Test;
my $response = Plack::Response->new(200);
$response->content('Hello World');
$response->cookies->{foo} = {
value => 'test',
expires => time + 24 * 60 * 60,
secure => 1,
};
$response->cookies->{bar} = {
value => 'test2',
expires => time + 24 * 60 * 60,
secure => 1,
};
$response->headers->push_header( 'Set-Cookie', 'foo=that' );
# traditional - named params
test_psgi
app => $response->to_app,
client => sub {
my $cb = shift;
my $req = HTTP::Request->new( GET => "http://localhost/hello" );
my $res = $cb->($req);
like $res->content, qr/Hello World/;
explain scalar $res->headers->header('Set-Cookie');
};
done_testing;
That final line prints:
foo=that, bar=test2; expires=Wed, 06-Jul-2022 12:27:13 GMT; secure, foo=test; expires=Wed, 06-Jul-2022 12:27:13 GMT; secure
Per the IETF spec, we have a couple of violations:
Origin servers SHOULD NOT fold multiple Set-Cookie header fields into a single header field. The usual mechanism for folding HTTP headers fields (i.e., as defined in [RFC2616]) might change the semantics of the Set-Cookie header field because the %x2C (",") character is used by Set-Cookie in a way that conflicts with such folding.
As a consequence of the above, in the last sentence of section 4.1.2, we find the following:
User agents ignore unrecognized cookie attributes (but not the entire cookie).
Because the header fields are joined on a comma, we have an invalid secure,
attribute, which suggests that strict cookie parsers might accept the cookie, but ignore the strict
attribute. This might be a serious security concern.
Servers SHOULD NOT include more than one Set-Cookie header field in the same response with the same cookie-name. (See Section 5.2 for how user agents handle this case.)
In the above example, we have the cookie foo
being set twice, with different values and attributes. This caused a serious authentication issue in our client's code.
Admittedly, this code is being used extensively and I'm unsure about a decent approach to solving it.