From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433C7445AE for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 13:37:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E7A68B5E6; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:37:18 +0200 (EET) Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef2.ens.fr [129.199.96.40]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53DDA68A4DB for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:37:11 +0200 (EET) X-ENS-nef-client: 129.199.129.80 ( name = phare.normalesup.org ) Received: from phare.normalesup.org (phare.normalesup.org [129.199.129.80]) by nef.ens.fr (8.14.4/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id 2BJDbAEg003422 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 14:37:10 +0100 Received: by phare.normalesup.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 84ABAEB5B7; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 14:37:10 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 14:37:10 +0100 From: Nicolas George To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: References: <7407e74b181e4e00a7b7104fb63cf56a@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]); Mon, 19 Dec 2022 14:37:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] fftools/ffmpeg_ffplay_ffprobe_cmdutils: add -mask_url to replace the protocol address in the command with the asterisk (*) X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Marvin Scholz (12022-12-19): > IIUC this means the `-mask_url` option has to be the first option passed, > which seems a bit of an unfortunate requirement and is not documented at > all, as far as I can see. So at least this should be clearly documented > to prevent users being confused why the get an unrecognised option error > when they do not pass it as the first option. Indeed. And I see no reason to have this option processed specially like that; it requires at least an explanation. > I am a bit confused how this helps for the issue it tries to solve, as > for some amount of time, until this is done, it would expose the full > plaintext URL still, no? This is unavoidable. Still, having sensitive information visible for a fraction of a second is better than having sensitive information visible for the length of a playback or transcoding process. Regards, -- Nicolas George _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".