=== on 2 Oct 2014, 19:32:47 Nicolas Peru wrote:
This is slightly different than what we discussed, in my mind, this rule should detect calls to request.getHeader("referer"). So a compliant solution should not have this call at all.

=== on 3 Oct 2014, 14:07:20 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~nicolas.peru] I'm assuming it's the code samples, rather than the description that you take issue with. Better now?

=== on 8 Oct 2014, 07:28:53 Nicolas Peru wrote:
Ok ! :) 

=== on 12 Dec 2014, 20:51:57 Sébastien Gioria wrote:
\[~nicolas.peru]: I disagree. You could have calls to request.getHeader("referer"); but you should never use the value returned to perform an authentication or autorization.



=== on 12 Dec 2014, 20:56:02 Nicolas Peru wrote:
\[~sebastien.gioria]I agree but how would you distiguish risky calls from correct one ? Idea here is to raise all calls to this method to let the security auditor mute the acceptable ones.

=== on 12 Dec 2014, 21:07:38 Sébastien Gioria wrote:
It the job of the security auditor ;) to distinguish it. If the idea is to trigger attention of the Security auditor, this could be OK. 

=== on 17 Feb 2021, 09:03:11 Eric Therond wrote:
This rule is not in SonarWay

we can safely deprecate it because taint analysis rules do a better job (referer header is a source) than this rule.

