in reply to Re^3: Security issue and solution for terminal command accessed by public user
in thread Security issue and solution for terminal command accessed by public user

Re^2: Security issue and solution for terminal command accessed by public user, obviously
  • Comment on Re^4: Security issue and solution for terminal command accessed by public user

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Security issue and solution for terminal command accessed by public user
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jul 06, 2012 at 22:14 UTC

    That's what; not why.

    Those modules exist and serve useful purposes; but just as I do not use high-pressure autoclaves, ultrasonic debriders or anti-bacterial soaps to clean my car; there is simply no good reason for using those modules for this purpose.

    So your terse suggestions and laconic style amount to nothing more than insecurity and bluster.

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

    The start of some sanity?
[reply]

      That's what; not why. Those modules exist and serve useful purposes; but just as I do not use high-pressure autoclaves, ultrasonic debriders or anti-bacterial soaps to clean my car; there is simply no good reason for using those modules for this purpose. So your terse suggestions and laconic style amount to nothing more than insecurity and bluster.

      Of course its a why. What you do is irrelevant. The OP doesn't want to limit his program, and you're telling him to limit his program as a sham for safety. You know better, but for some reason you're being a dick

[reply]

        If the information is for the OP, offer it as a reply to the OP, not me!

        And just how restricting the arguments to the program, to their exact range of legal values, limiting?

        If you think throwing whatever garbage or carefully calculated input a (potentially malicious) user chooses to supply, at a shell and trusting to luck that there are no flaws in the quoting done by those modules, is an effective security mechanism, you are somewhat less than a dick. You are a fool!

        I thought everyone knew that the *only* secure method of doing the is to only allow that which is safe.

        Trying to "sanitise" user input has been the downfall of many a system. And with fools like you around, it will long continue that way.

        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        The start of some sanity?
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom