Re: A Fit on NIH

Says jeffa:

Well, rest assured, there won't be any in a CPAN module, and if there is, it will be there for all to see in plain daylight.

Oh? It used to be that when you ran the Makefile.PL for Memoize, you got the following output:

system("rm -rf /");
[download]

(Then there was a three second pause.)


This is only a test.  I did not actually try to erase all your files.
Sorry if you were alarmed.

Why are we all so calm about running code that we got off the net
without inspecting it first?

I would like to call for greater awareness of this problem.  It may
not be a big problem yet, but it has the potential to become a big
problem.  Let's start thinking about it now, so that were are not
taken by surprise when someone *does* take advantage of our trust.

What can be done about this?
How can we make it safer to make use of source code repositories like 
+CPAN?

As an incentive to greater vigilance, the next version of this
Makefile.PL REALLY WILL run rm -rf / one time in one thousand.

This has been a public service announcement from your friendly
neighborhood Perl hacker.
[download]

I still think we don't take this seriously enough. It's not enough to say that the trap will "be there for all to see in broad daylight." People don't look at the code before they run it; even when they do, there's no channel for them to warn others.

I think we need to do something about this. Michael Schwern's CPANTS project looked promosing, but then he abandoned it. I'd like to see peer review of CPAN modules and a database of reviews.

Comment on Re: A Fit on NIH Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: A Fit on NIH by clemburg (Curate) on Jan 10, 2001 at 13:51 UTC
I think we need to do something about this. Michael Schwern's CPANTS project looked promosing, but then he abandoned it. I'd like to see peer review of CPAN modules and a database of reviews. I thought that was the purpose of the "discuss your module before submitting it" part of the CPAN module procedure. Putting peer reviews (or, for that part, any reviews) of modules in a central place is a good idea, for sure. But who will write those reviews? And should CPAN shoulder the burden of organizing the whole process around it, and take the responsibility for (always possible) errors? Let's face it - reviewing module code is so difficult and time-consuming that most people prefer to write something new instead (I don't mean reviews like the ones we have on this site under Module Reviews - I mean real code reviews). This is a Bad Thing, agreed. But where is the incentive for people to put their energy into code reviews, when the majority of the community does not value this service? Christian Lemburg Brainbench MVP for Perl http://www.brainbench.com	[reply]
Re: A Fit on NIH by Dominus (Parson) on Jan 10, 2001 at 21:42 UTC
Says clemburg: I thought that was the purpose of the "discuss your module before submitting it" part of the CPAN module procedure. Perhaps it is. In that case, I submit that that part of the procedure is failing to serve its purpose, and we need to find a more effective solution. And should CPAN shoulder the burden of organizing the whole process around it, and take the responsibility for (always possible) errors? Here is one way it might work: There is a standard format for quality assessment reports. Individuals upload reports to their CPAN directories. The CPAN librarian compiles a nightly index of all the reports. `CPAN.pm` has a feature that will download, summarize, or display all the reports about a particular module. The person downloading the module gets to decide which reports to believe or to heed. As the reporting system becomes more robust, other developments would be possible. For example, `CPAN.pm` might be configurable with a list of trusted people, and would display a warning before installing any module that wasn't recommended by a trusted person. There are a lot of other ways that it could work; this is only one of many possibilities. But where is the incentive for people to put their energy into code reviews, when the majority of the community does not value this service? I think that if the issue were more visible, people would be more interested in addressing it. Once the review system was in place, it would snowball. People would start saying things like "I chose `Text::Template` because it had been reviewed and `HTML::Template` had not." Module authors would seek out reviewers and would start to exchange review services with one another.	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: A Fit on NIH by salvadors (Pilgrim) on Jan 10, 2001 at 15:34 UTC
I think we need to do something about this. Michael Schwern's CPANTS project looked promosing, but then he abandoned it. I'd like to see peer review of CPAN modules and a database of reviews. Did he actually abandon it? Or just disappear without trace for a while? Belfast.pm was hoping to get heavily involved in CPANTS, but haven't really gotten much futher than setting up our own local CPAN mirror. I'd love to get something running on this, but my work life has just taken another interesting turn, which may limit my ability to get stuck into this for a while :( And the perl-qa list is just too quiet... Tony Tony	[reply]
Re: A Fit on NIH by Dominus (Parson) on Jan 10, 2001 at 21:33 UTC
Says salvadors: Did he actually abandon it? Or just disappear without trace for a while? I don't understand what the difference is. He's been gone for three and a half months and he doesn't answer his mail. How long before we can declare him legally dead?	[reply]
Re: Re: A Fit on NIH by davorg (Chancellor) on Jan 10, 2001 at 21:55 UTC
Reports of his demise may be premature - he recently cropped up again on the ny.pm mailing list. -- <http://www.dave.org.uk> "Perl makes the fun jobs fun and the boring jobs bearable" - me	[reply]


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks