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".
| [reply] |
If the information is for the OP, offer it as a reply to the OP, not me! Its both
And just how restricting the arguments to the program, to their exact range of legal values, limiting?
It would require the Op to enumerate every possible legal input , even all the units, of which he says there are 2526; quoting is much simpler
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! Its much better to badmouth them without investigation of any kind
I thought everyone knew that the *only* secure method of doing the is to only allow that which is safe. Yup, and quoting , or avoiding the shell accomplishes this exactly
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. What, you've never heard of the `rm -rfv /` units?
| [reply]
[d/l] |