comment on

Is this news? This sounds like the sort of thing that taint checking was invented for.

From the article:

You can get something up and running quickly. Presumably, if it's not a one-time type program, you should polish it up afterwards, adding things like error checking and security checks but, shocking as it might seem, this doesn't always happen.

I.e. poor programmers can write bad code -- no big deal. Or how about ...

In fact, from my own experience digging around Perl programs, they're among the sloppiest and most unreadable programs out there.

It's almost as if he's arguing that Perl programs just accumulate syntax trash, no matter how well meaning the programmer was. This is not a flaw of the language.

Update: Removed inflammatory stuff. I know better than to write posts immediately after attending a funeral :-(

In reply to Re: New Perl Vulnerability? by bluto
in thread New Perl Vulnerability? by wolfger

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
	PerlMonks