Subject: Breaking News: hair treatment

From: Keranique <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:59:13 -0700

Hey Krb-wg-archive,

Ready to regrow fuller thicker hair?

- Reverse the signs of embarassing hair loss
- FDA approved
- Clinically Proven

Celeb Docs are raving about this on daytime TV.

Redeem Your Trial Here -> http://www.acrossthus.com/episode/redeem/trial.html

-
-
-
-
To stop further messages - write - Daily Updated Alerts
 nine three zero six - B O V A  C T Louisville, KY 40291 or visit http://www.acrossthus.com/gkr/skwof/skfw2.11we3
-
-
Right, but it's not a syntax error, and all the implementations handle it the same. So I think it's pretty safe  the implementations handle it the same"  That's a difficult thing to prove. 
The order of elements in JSON is not guaranteed. That means the "last" item could change! from thejective "may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood  The order is not guaranteed, because what matters is the parser not the person writing the file. The JSON specification doesn't describe what should happen if there are duplicate keys (it says that you SHOULD make This clearly violates the spec (see above comments), don't do this. Yes, the full implications must be understood. There is no way to understand those without testing  would be totally reasonable for a parser to discard values of existing keys instead of overwriting them.   	
There are over a hundred different implementations currently listed at json.org. I bet at least one of them  once had quite some trouble with JSON files that had double keys just because it was not explicitely  own implementation (for an embedded system, couldn't find an existing one that matched the ol discovery! It goes against the spec, though, so I'm downvoting. It would be great if all parsers work the desired way, but that seems unlikely, and even more unlikely that all future parsers will work the desired way.  I'm just saying that the spec isn't clear about how to handle this case and this is a clever hack which  the author of SBJson, I beg you: please don't abuse the JSON spec in this way. I know we have lots of 'hacks' in software but this doesn't feel right.. This is a bad idea, pure and simple. You're abusing a gray area of the JSON specification and it is irresponsible to be promoting such a practice to others. It's a hack; don't do it.   Brad Choate Aug 2 '13 at e beggi
 ng for this to blow up in your face. Like others mentioned, a parser may outright reject your JSON, echo back the "comment" instead of the value, or fail in mysterious ways, like pushing two events for the same key (streaming parsers, most likely). For example, the recent APK signature vulnerability was essentially exploiting the same thing, undefined behavior for multiple non-unique keys (file names), just in zip instead of JSON