mirror of
https://github.com/django/django.git
synced 2024-11-22 03:18:31 +01:00
Changed the doc to use gender-neutral pronouns when possible.
This commit is contained in:
parent
00a0d3de02
commit
e1b7723817
@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ purchase an item. A user has chosen to stay logged into the store all the time
|
||||
for convenience. An attacker site might create an "I Like Ponies" button on one
|
||||
of their own pages, and load the store's page in a transparent iframe such that
|
||||
the "Buy Now" button is invisibly overlaid on the "I Like Ponies" button. If the
|
||||
user visits the attacker site and clicks "I Like Ponies" he will inadvertently
|
||||
user visits the attacker site and clicks "I Like Ponies" he or she will inadvertently
|
||||
click on the online store's "Buy Now" button and unknowingly purchase the item.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _clickjacking-prevention:
|
||||
|
@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ Getting the current domain for display
|
||||
|
||||
LJWorld.com and Lawrence.com both have email alert functionality, which lets
|
||||
readers sign up to get notifications when news happens. It's pretty basic: A
|
||||
reader signs up on a Web form, and he immediately gets an email saying,
|
||||
reader signs up on a Web form, and he or she immediately gets an email saying,
|
||||
"Thanks for your subscription."
|
||||
|
||||
It'd be inefficient and redundant to implement this signup-processing code
|
||||
|
@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ The security checks for these redirects (namely
|
||||
``django.util.http.is_safe_url()``) didn't check if the scheme is ``http(s)``
|
||||
and as such allowed ``javascript:...`` URLs to be entered. If a developer
|
||||
relied on ``is_safe_url()`` to provide safe redirect targets and put such a
|
||||
URL into a link, he could suffer from a XSS attack. This bug doesn't affect
|
||||
URL into a link, he or she could suffer from a XSS attack. This bug doesn't affect
|
||||
Django currently, since we only put this URL into the ``Location`` response
|
||||
header and browsers seem to ignore JavaScript there.
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -811,7 +811,7 @@ instance:
|
||||
|
||||
* Consequences: The user will see an error about the form having expired
|
||||
and will be sent back to the first page of the wizard, losing the data
|
||||
he has entered so far.
|
||||
he or she has entered so far.
|
||||
|
||||
* Time period: The amount of time you expect users to take filling out the
|
||||
affected forms.
|
||||
|
@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ The security checks for these redirects (namely
|
||||
``django.util.http.is_safe_url()``) didn't check if the scheme is ``http(s)``
|
||||
and as such allowed ``javascript:...`` URLs to be entered. If a developer
|
||||
relied on ``is_safe_url()`` to provide safe redirect targets and put such a
|
||||
URL into a link, he could suffer from a XSS attack. This bug doesn't affect
|
||||
URL into a link, he or she could suffer from a XSS attack. This bug doesn't affect
|
||||
Django currently, since we only put this URL into the ``Location`` response
|
||||
header and browsers seem to ignore JavaScript there.
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ and the :setting:`SECRET_KEY` setting.
|
||||
cookie backend might open you up to `replay attacks`_. Unlike other session
|
||||
backends which keep a server-side record of each session and invalidate it
|
||||
when a user logs out, cookie-based sessions are not invalidated when a user
|
||||
logs out. Thus if an attacker steals a user's cookie, he can use that
|
||||
logs out. Thus if an attacker steals a user's cookie, he or she can use that
|
||||
cookie to login as that user even if the user logs out. Cookies will only
|
||||
be detected as 'stale' if they are older than your
|
||||
:setting:`SESSION_COOKIE_AGE`.
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user