Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Perl Security Testing

by sundialsvc4 (Abbot)
on Jul 26, 2017 at 00:14 UTC ( #1196055=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Perl Security Testing
in thread Perl Security Testing

Just keep down-voting, mein enemy.   Just keep down-voting.

(Maybe “the usual seven” could write a short Perl script to query all 4,329 of my posts so-far, and, if all of you ran this script to down-vote every single one of my posts, then maybe you will finally succeed in down-voting me completely off the island ...   Woo, hoo!)

Otherwise, please listen up . . .

Otherwise, I stand behind my original comments without further comment.   The OP knows little about security, is blanched by the number of CVE reports that have been logged with regards to Perl, and really does want information and assurance.   Not too much of interest has so-far been said in this thread, hence my comment.   First, that there is nothing particularly special ... nor, categorically “vulnerable,” about Perl.   And, that most interesting exploitable-things occur at the operating system level, not the application.   Merely overflowing a buffer will not get you root, and so on.

And, in my second paragraph, underscoring the human(!) factor.   It has usually been my experience over these many, many years ... and, believe it or not, it’s getting close to forty ... that security breaches which were initially ascribed to “external” sources, almost always turned out to be “internal.”   My client-before-this also had the experience of realizing ex post facto that he had unwittingly hired a convicted felon on probation.

I will also, incidentally, stand behind all of my previous, cited by you, posts, as well.   Not the way that you would have responded to the same thread?   Goody for you.   There is(!) “more than one way to do™” a great many things in this world – including, replying to a thread.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Perl Security Testing
by marto (Archbishop) on Jul 26, 2017 at 09:49 UTC

    "mein enemy."

    Don't flatter yourself, difficult for you I know.

    "The OP knows little about security"

    Interesting you should say that about others, given your post history on the subject.

    "First, that there is nothing particularly special ... nor, categorically “vulnerable,” about Perl."

    "This flaw could be exploited to carry out a denial of service attack against code that uses arbitrary user input as hash keys.". Perl might allow context-dependent attackers to bypass the taint protection mechanism in a child process via duplicate environment variables in envp..

    "Merely overflowing a buffer will not get you root, and so on."

    Buffer_overflow:

    "Exploiting the behavior of a buffer overflow is a well-known security exploit. On many systems, the memory layout of a program, or the system as a whole, is well defined. By sending in data designed to cause a buffer overflow, it is possible to write into areas known to hold executable code, and replace it with malicious code. Buffers are widespread in operating system (OS) code, so it is possible to make attacks that perform privilege escalation and gain unlimited access to the computer's resources. The famed Morris worm used this as one of its attack techniques."

    get a root shell via buffer overflow privilaged escalation of lpr, among many others.

    "I will also, incidentally, stand behind all of my previous, cited by you, posts, as well."

    The crux of the problem. Your attitude. You stand by your terrible advice that has been proven wrong, time and time again. You hold your head up high and stand by what is proven incorrect. You don't care. Self publicising against all else. Regarding the human factor, you're just spouting what you think people want to hear, all other examples linked to many times before show you behaving in the opposite manner in which you claim.

Re^4: Perl Security Testing
by Your Mother (Bishop) on Jul 26, 2017 at 07:06 UTC
    s/(?<=usual )seven/couple dozen/;

    Most of us could, definitely. The overriding, ongoing point being, you couldn’t. You go on and on about your expertise and decades of experience with 5,000 programming languages, and how easy it all is for you. Your bragging makes you sound like you should easily be a guru, the guru, but there is not a lazier, less helpful monk in the monastery. Whoever is giving you your handful of upvotes here and there are either new and shallow readers or doing it out of pity because they think I and others are picking on you. I’m not your enemy though. You only have one real enemy here.

    Now, my turn to be lazy. Instead of refuting your points by spending 45 minutes looking up specifics and links and trying to write it up, I’ll just provide one giant contrary data point: gmail cookies/sessions were hackable for years, on any browser, on any OS.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1196055]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others cooling their heels in the Monastery: (3)
As of 2019-07-21 04:10 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    If you were the first to set foot on the Moon, what would be your epigram?






    Results (7 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?