Fix: Remove security footgun example in onchain values docs #793
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
1 Ignored Deployment
|
mitschabaude
commented
Jan 15, 2024
barriebyron
approved these changes
Jan 16, 2024
|
thanks for the fix! |
@barriebyron not sure, haven't gone through it all in detail again |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The code example deleted here (written by me originally) makes no sense and suggests usage of on-chain values in an insecure way: Using a completely unconstrained value (
now) to define a range that treats that unconstrained value as the actual value.A better example for
requireBetween()with the.get()value as input would be to treat it like "requireEquals()but allowing for an error"