# SiteSetting numbers not properly validated

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/sitesetting-numbers-not-properly-validated/25026>\
**Category:** Bug\
**Created:** [09.Февраль.2015 17:58:51 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/sitesetting-numbers-not-properly-validated/25026 "2015-02-09T17:58:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![codinghorror](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/codinghorror/32/110067_2.png) [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)\
**Post date:** [09.Февраль.2015 23:49:11 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/sitesetting-numbers-not-properly-validated/25026/5 "2015-02-09T23:49:11Z")

</div>

Well, if you know programming at all, it’d likely be near 231.

Basically -2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647 so.. pretty far outside the realm of normal.

Looks like Ruby does other magic here…

> <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/535721/ruby-max-integer>

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/sitesetting-numbers-not-properly-validated/25026)._