|
Re: Stop Using Perl pt. 2
by choroba (Cardinal) on Dec 29, 2015 at 23:21 UTC
|
Link to Kent Fredric's analysis of the talk (found in the YouTube discussion).
($q=q:Sq=~/;[c](.)(.)/;chr(-||-|5+lengthSq)`"S|oS2"`map{chr |+ord
}map{substrSq`S_+|`|}3E|-|`7**2-3:)=~y+S|`+$1,++print+eval$q,q,a,
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Cool the analysis saved me from watching "Nathanial the Jammer" again! =)
| [reply] |
Re: Stop Using Perl pt. 2
by CountZero (Bishop) on Dec 29, 2015 at 18:41 UTC
|
An ignoramus speaking to his sycophants. Not even worth to click the youtube link. The C-language makes it so easy to have buffer overflows that are arguably the source of multi millions of damage. So let's trash C and go back to the good old slide rule and pencil and paper. Any programmer worth his salt can write bad code in any language.
CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James My blog: Imperial Deltronics
| [reply] |
Re: Stop Using Perl pt. 2.. mwhaahaha!!
by Discipulus (Canon) on Dec 29, 2015 at 08:39 UTC
|
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Re: Stop Using Perl pt. 2
by Tanktalus (Canon) on Sep 03, 2016 at 18:52 UTC
|
His basic, most fundamental flaw, was simple.
He complained, "Why don't perl improve?" near the end. It was his conclusion - perl is crap because it "don't improve (sic)." And he proved this lovely little theorem by testing the "popular" and massively outdated modules. I don't care what language you write your web service in, if you use models and libraries that are not current, you're going to have problems.
He complained that perl hasn't improved based on the fact that his choice of targets were outdated. WAT is right.
There were other problems, to be sure, but this one is so fundamental that the rest of his flaws are really quite minor, relatively speaking. Basically, he just told us that Java 1.2 is insecure, and that everyone should stop using Java 8 because of that.
And this passes for security research? Maybe in his little corner of the world, but any serious security researcher would be embarrassed by such a conclusion from such irrelevant evidence.
| [reply] |
Re: Stop Using Perl pt. 2
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 29, 2015 at 06:17 UTC
|
Published on 28 Dec 2015
Published to Utube yesterday, just in time for your post? Did you publish it? If not, man you've got your finger on the pulse.
If so, why do you (and how much did you pay?) attend talks where they allow cantankerous children like this to speak? Twice!
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.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
|
|
I watched both talks on YouTube - not in person. I have not attended CCC and do not have any affiliation with CCC or the speaker. Just another annoyed monk.
| [reply] |
Re: Stop Using Perl pt. 2
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 29, 2015 at 08:20 UTC
|
Hashes and arrays are considered "secure" (???) probably thinking of buffer overflows
but it seems like this talk is more productive.
What does that mean "productive"?
You take old information (not news) and use it to for self-promotion and ... inspire comments like SebastianMisch 6 hours ago
Great talk. I had a big laugh. I watched the previous talk and those two talks have definitely taught me to stay as far away from Perl < 6 as possible.?
·
lathiat 5 hours ago
I was looking forward to this talk badly after last years, and boy we were in for a treat. This guy is a great presenter, on top of great content. Highly entertaining and informative.?
Productive? Um, yeah, sure
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Actually, by "hashes and arrays are considered secure", he meant that Perl developers do not consider hashes, arrays, or elements of either to be controlled by user input - not requiring sanitation.
By 'productive' I meant that he actually found some serious gotcha's rather than complaining about basic language features. Like, I had no idea about <$file> when $file is actually ARGV or whatever he went on about.
| [reply] |
|
|
Even if you use the relatively safe three-argument version of open, you need to sanitize the user input. Ideally, you would never use user input to open a file or pass user input to an operating system function, which is where open basically ends up at. If you open files from user input and don't use three-argument open, you get what you deserve. This is documented in I/O Operators, but maybe not in such direct words.
| [reply] |
