GET 與 POST 的差異

看到這篇在講 HTTP (& HTTPS) 裡面 GET 與 POST 的差異,剛好把一些標準的定義拿出來翻一翻,算是複習基本概念:「Get safe」。

第一個基本概念主要是 idempotence (& idempotent),重複被呼叫不會造成狀態的再次改變:

Idempotence ([...]) is the property of certain operations in mathematics and computer science whereby they can be applied multiple times without changing the result beyond the initial application.


An element x of a magma (M, •) is said to be idempotent if:

x • x = x.

If all elements are idempotent with respect to •, then • is called idempotent. The formula ∀x, x • x = x is called the idempotency law for •.

這點在 HTTP 標準 (RFC 7231) 裡面的定義也類似:

A request method is considered "idempotent" if the intended effect on the server of multiple identical requests with that method is the same as the effect for a single such request. Of the request methods defined by this specification, PUT, DELETE, and safe request methods are idempotent.

第二個基本概念是 Safe method (也是在同樣的 RFC 裡被提到),主要的思想是 read-only,這也是文章作者的標題要講的事情:

Request methods are considered "safe" if their defined semantics are essentially read-only; i.e., the client does not request, and does not expect, any state change on the origin server as a result of applying a safe method to a target resource. Likewise, reasonable use of a safe method is not expected to cause any harm, loss of property, or unusual burden on the origin server.

然後標準的 HTTP method 是有定義的:

   | Method  | Safe | Idempotent | Reference     |
   | CONNECT | no   | no         | Section 4.3.6 |
   | DELETE  | no   | yes        | Section 4.3.5 |
   | GET     | yes  | yes        | Section 4.3.1 |
   | HEAD    | yes  | yes        | Section 4.3.2 |
   | OPTIONS | yes  | yes        | Section 4.3.7 |
   | POST    | no   | no         | Section 4.3.3 |
   | PUT     | no   | yes        | Section 4.3.4 |
   | TRACE   | yes  | yes        | Section 4.3.8 |

不過文章裡面提到的第一個例子並沒有很好,POST 不保證 safe 沒錯,但不代表 safe operation 就不能用 POST。

這邊用 URI resource 的概念 (以及 SEO?) 或是用 Post/Redirect/Get 的概念來說明會比較好:

<form method="get" action="/search">
<input type="search" name="term">


“Log out” links that should be forms with a “log out” button—you can always style it to look like a link if you want.

“Unsubscribe” links in emails that immediately trigger the action of unsubscribing instead of going to a form where the POST method does the unsubscribing. I realise that this turns unsubscribing into a two-step process, which is a bit annoying from a usability point of view, but a destructive action should never be baked into a GET request.

這兩個動作都會造成 server 端的狀態改變,不應該用 GET,而我自己常常忘記第一個... 這邊其實可以用 form 產生 POST 需求,並且用 css 效果包起來,達到看起來跟一般的連結一樣。


apt-get 的安全性漏洞

前幾天寫的「APT 不使用 HTTPS 的說明」的當下就已經有看到在講這個漏洞,但沒讀完就一直放著沒寫:「Remote Code Execution in apt/apt-get」。

漏洞出在實作上的問題,對於 HTTP 重導的程式碼沒有處理好外部字串,在還沒修正的機器上用這個指令關閉 redirect,避免在修正的過程反而被 RCE 打進去:

sudo apt update -o Acquire::http::AllowRedirect=false
sudo apt upgrade -o Acquire::http::AllowRedirect=false

但也不是 HTTPS 就能避免這個問題,因為 HTTPS 連線用的程式碼又是另外一份,裡面不知道有沒有問題 (像是之前經典的 Heartbleed),所以應該還是會繼續爭吵吧...

Amazon S3 調降 request 本身的收費...

Amazon S3 的 request 費用大幅調降:「Announcing New Lower Request Pricing for Amazon S3」。

PUT/LIST/COPY/POST 的部份調降 50%,本來每千個是 USD$0.01 調降到 USD$0.005。而 GET 調降 60%,本來 USD$0.01 調降到 USD$0.004。

本來 CloudFront 可以降低 request 費用 (美國區每千個 GET 是 USD$0.0075),現在相比反而變貴... 還是過陣子 CloudFront 有機會再調降 request 費用?