In the latter case, there are three issues I'm aware of

1. code injection by string interpolation, like /@{ do_evil() }/
2. code injection by regex, like /(?{ do_evil() })/
3. exponential time regexes with excessive backtracking, something like /((x*)*)*/ IIRC </ol?

Embedded code within a pattern is only allowed within the scope of use re 'eval'; otherwise trying to compile such a regex from a string will die at run time.

The third one is a genuine issue, in terms of both CPU and memory usage.

Dave.

> So if the pattern is read from a file or database this isn't an issue.

As I said "In the latter case" of general vulnerabilities, these are some issues to be aware of.

The OP said

> > These regexes are in the dozens, and are scattered across several scripts and libraries.

> > maintenance of these mappings is easier.

I doubt the general case can be solved with a DB of simple strings. Maintainable regexes are composed of smaller ones by interpolation and dynamic compilation. Which brings us back to start.

> is only allowed within the scope of use re 'eval';

with "newer" Perls yes. I noticed that you changed it around 2013, and am thankful for that. *

> The third one is a genuine issue, in terms of both CPU and memory usage.

well some regex engines optimize sometimes better than Perl's.

I remember a demo of a case with nested quantifiers where unix' grep did very well and Perl waited for the end of times.

This could be eased by analyzing the regex for potential traps like listed here and warning accordingly.

This analyze could be done by parsing the compilation with re 'debug'; °

But again this could open the door for those general vulnerabilities, that's why I prefer to point to them.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

°) for completeness TheDamian published a static parser for perl regexes, I can't tell how closely it incorporates new features.

*) Some IDEs do perl -c on default when they open a perl file. Sending a troyan script with a evil BEGIN block will execute instantly after opening. And obfuscation with Acme::EyeDrops will still allow hiding the evil logic into a regex, one just needs to add use re 'eval'; for newer Perls

> is only allowed within the scope of use re 'eval'; with "newer" Perls yes. I noticed that you changed it around 2013, and am thankful for that. *

Um no, "use re 'eval'" has always been required to allow non-literal code blocks in patterns. The big "re eval" rewrite in 5.18.0 just made it smarter, so that for example a literal (and thus safe) code block could be interpolated into a run-time regex without needing the "use re 'eval'":

use re 'eval'; # ** no longer needed from 5.18.0 onwards
$r = qr/xyz/;
/(?{ foo() })$r/;
[download]

Dave.

use Safe;

$compartment = new Safe; 

$compartment->permit(qw(time sort :browse));

$result = $compartment->reval($unsafe_code);
[download]

Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to disable compiletime blocks like BEGIN and there doesn't seem to be another way to disable or override BEGIN...

I'd love to be corrected.

UPDATE

oh Keyword::Simple could do the trick :)

It's indeed possible to bend the parser in a way that it thinks BEGIN and family are subs

use strict;
use warnings;
use Keyword::Simple;

sub no_begin ($&){
    warn "no_begin(@_) called";
}

my @code;

BEGIN{
    my @compile_blocks = qw(BEGIN UNITCHECK CHECK INIT END);

    for my $block (@compile_blocks) {

        # bend parser
        Keyword::Simple::define $block, sub {
            my ($ref) = @_;
            substr($$ref, 0, 0) = "no_begin '$block', sub";
        };

        # test code
        push @code , <<__CODE__;
        $block { die "owened by $block" }
__CODE__

    }
}

BEGIN { die "owened by BEGIN" };
UNITCHECK { die "owened by UNITCHECK" };
CHECK { die "owened by CHECK" };
INIT { die "owened by INIT" };
END { die "owened by END" };

eval join "\n", @code;
[download]

-*- mode: compilation; default-directory: "d:/tmp/pm/" -*-
Compilation started at Wed Oct  6 19:04:01

C:/Strawberry/perl/bin\perl.exe -w d:/tmp/pm/KW_simple_regex_BEGIN.pl 
no_begin(BEGIN CODE(0x694268)) called at d:/tmp/pm/KW_simple_regex_BEG
+IN.pl line 6.
no_begin(UNITCHECK CODE(0x6556d0)) called at d:/tmp/pm/KW_simple_regex
+_BEGIN.pl line 6.
no_begin(CHECK CODE(0x6942b0)) called at d:/tmp/pm/KW_simple_regex_BEG
+IN.pl line 6.
no_begin(INIT CODE(0x6c8aa0)) called at d:/tmp/pm/KW_simple_regex_BEGI
+N.pl line 6.
no_begin(END CODE(0x6c8c38)) called at d:/tmp/pm/KW_simple_regex_BEGIN
+.pl line 6.
Bareword found where operator expected at (eval 5) line 5, near "}

        CHECK"
    (Missing operator before CHECK?)
[download]

But unfortunately does evaling the code not catch parsing errors anymore... (reason here BEGIN{} blocks don't need a trailing semicolon)

so the answer is:

• Yes BEGIN* blocks can be disabled.
• But this is best done in an extra process

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

I also took the meat of this question to be about accepting user input, then throwing that into a regex - only to say, don't trust user input directly - as always. There's only one mention of taint in this whole thread, and I am replying to it. :-)