On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Phil Endecott via Boost
Has it been reviewed by anyone with specific experience of how HTTP can be attacked? Has it been "fuzzed"?
I would love for someone to do a security audit and in the absence of a volunteer I will likely take on the expense myself. That said, I have made the tests quite extensive. 100% code coverage is always an ongoing goal. All branches which handle failure are checked, and there is a concept called "bufgrind" where all possible 2-buffer combinations of inputs are tested. This means for a message of size N it is split up into two buffers x and N-x and fed to the parser. You can see that stuff here: https://github.com/vinniefalco/Beast/blob/78a065ba39836d91d7e70d93de7f9140f5... https://github.com/vinniefalco/Beast/blob/78a065ba39836d91d7e70d93de7f9140f5... https://github.com/vinniefalco/Beast/blob/78a065ba39836d91d7e70d93de7f9140f5... You can see that coverage is extremely high: https://codecov.io/gh/vinniefalco/Beast/src/review/include/beast/http/impl/b... Note that the review branch is missing some tests which I have since added, so actual coverage is higher than what is displayed here.