I believe you have a stray "un" in there... All functions in the CGI interface should return tainted values (at least when said values are derived from an untrusted source) because only the code which ultimately uses the data is able to determine whether the data is safe or not. There's no way for this (presumably hypothetical) CGI::Paranoia module to make that determination on its own. Even an application-specified untaint handler can't readily resolve this (unless it's specifiable on a call-by-call basis, at which point you may as well just make the untainting call normally anyhow), as data which is safe in one section of the application may not be safe in another.
In reply to Re: CGI::Paranoia - Re^4: Is the force_untaint option in HTML::Template overkill?
by dsheroh
in thread Is the force_untaint option in HTML::Template overkill?
by SilasTheMonk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |