You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 4, 2020. It is now read-only.
Security concern: Incremental IRI generation is by definition highly predictable, while the RandomPrefixedIriGenerator is hard (but not impossible) to predict.
An attacker, that is able to create new object and to choose its IRI, can poison IN ADVANCE an object by assigning it assertions that will not be overwritten when this IRI will be allocated by the IRI generator.
Should we prevent it by forcing the IRI generator to make IRI uniqueness test? If so, IncrementalIriGenerator performance will decrease again and will favour the RandomPrefixedIriGenerator as the recommended IRI generator.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Security concern: Incremental IRI generation is by definition highly predictable, while the RandomPrefixedIriGenerator is hard (but not impossible) to predict.
An attacker, that is able to create new object and to choose its IRI, can poison IN ADVANCE an object by assigning it assertions that will not be overwritten when this IRI will be allocated by the IRI generator.
Should we prevent it by forcing the IRI generator to make IRI uniqueness test? If so, IncrementalIriGenerator performance will decrease again and will favour the RandomPrefixedIriGenerator as the recommended IRI generator.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: