Why Is Escaping Data Considered So Magical?
in [Python]
|
Prev: GDAL-1.7.1 : vcvarsall.bat missing
Next: improving python performance by extension module (64bit)
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 25 Jun 2010 20:47 In message <mailman.2046.1277445301.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Cameron Simpson wrote: > On 25Jun2010 15:38, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> > wrote: > > | In message <2010062422432660794-angrybaldguy(a)gmailcom>, Owen Jacobson > | wrote: > > | > Why would I write this when SQLAlchemy, even without using its ORM > | > features, can do it for me? > | > | SQLAlchemy doesn't seem very flexible. Looking at the code examples > | <http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/examples.html>, they're very procedural: > | build object, then do a string of separate method calls to add data to > | it. I prefer the functional approach, as in my table-update example. > > He said "without using its ORM". I noticed that. So were those examples I referenced above “using its ORM”? Can you offer better examples “without using its ORM”?
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 25 Jun 2010 20:49 In message <slrni297ec.1m5.grahn+nntp(a)frailea.sa.invalid>, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > I thought it was well-known that the solution is *not* to try to > sanitize the input -- it's to switch to an interface which doesn't > involve generating an intermediate executable. In the Python example, > that would be something like os.popen2(['zcat', '-f', '--', untrusted]). That's what I mean. Why do people consider input sanitization so hard?
From: Owen Jacobson on 25 Jun 2010 22:56 On 2010-06-25 20:49:09 -0400, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said: > In message <slrni297ec.1m5.grahn+nntp(a)frailea.sa.invalid>, Jorgen Grahn > wrote: > >> I thought it was well-known that the solution is *not* to try to >> sanitize the input -- it's to switch to an interface which doesn't >> involve generating an intermediate executable. In the Python example, >> that would be something like os.popen2(['zcat', '-f', '--', untrusted]). > > That's what I mean. Why do people consider input sanitization so hard? It's not hard. It's just begging for a visit from the fuckup fairy. -o
From: Robert Kern on 25 Jun 2010 23:18 On 2010-06-25 19:47 , Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<mailman.2046.1277445301.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Cameron > Simpson wrote: > >> On 25Jun2010 15:38, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> >> wrote: >> >> | In message<2010062422432660794-angrybaldguy(a)gmailcom>, Owen Jacobson >> | wrote: >> >> |> Why would I write this when SQLAlchemy, even without using its ORM >> |> features, can do it for me? >> | >> | SQLAlchemy doesn't seem very flexible. Looking at the code examples >> |<http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/examples.html>, they're very procedural: >> | build object, then do a string of separate method calls to add data to >> | it. I prefer the functional approach, as in my table-update example. >> >> He said "without using its ORM". > > I noticed that. So were those examples I referenced above “using its ORM”? > Can you offer better examples “without using its ORM”? http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/sqlexpression.html -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco
From: Tim Chase on 25 Jun 2010 23:29
On 06/25/2010 07:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> In the Python example, that would be something like >> os.popen2(['zcat', '-f', '--', untrusted]). > > That's what I mean. Why do people consider input sanitization > so hard? It's hard because it requires thinking. Sadly, many of the people I know who call themselves programmers couldn't code their way out of a paper bag, let alone think logically about the security implications of their code.[1] -tkc [1] much of which ends up being cargo-cult programming, cut-n-paste'd from Google search-results. |