If spammers can abuse something, they gonna abuse it
I mean, allowing arbitrary characters in the name is one thing. I think I would do that as well, as there are many weird names out there.
But then actually parsing it out (or not escaping it properly), that's the real sin.
Might be the mail client being helpful and going "hey! Thats a URL. Let me make it a link"
If it doesn't exclude a URL it likely doesn't block SQL either.
Time for the ol XKCD Little Bobby Tables attack
That's not how this works.
You have a database driver that takes care of communicating with the database.
In the bad old days (pre-early 2000s) the only way they knew how to do that was plain old SQL strings so you passed a string that contained both the data and the instructions on what to do with it.
Now you SHOULD be writing prepared statements that contain the instructions then passing the data separately to fill in the placeholders in the prepared statement via the driver (NOT via modifying the string).
// DO NOT DO THIS
execute("INSERT INTO foo VALUES ('a', 'b', 'c')")
vs
// DO THIS
executePrepared("INSERT INTO foo VALUES (?,?,?)", "a", "b", "c")
And yet injection is still #3 in the OWASP Top 10
Okay?
You make it sound as if it's a thing of the past when it is still a common problem.
It's a common problem for the same reason that it's a common problem for people to have precision errors when doing math with currencies... People write the wrong code because they don't know any better (in that case using float or double/floating point math instead of a BigDecimal type).
Not filtering out characters that could be part of URL has no bearing on whether or not the site is properly protected from SQL injection. I'm much more often worried about sites that explicitly filter out certain characters because it likely means they don't understand what they're doing (similar to sites that insist on annual password changes).
The fact that people are arguing about this shows how much of an issue we have with education on this topic.
Please explain how you remain confident of that "SHOULD" when they are not sanitizing the HTML out?
Because it's literally impossible for SQL injection to occur if you do this. The database has already compiled the operation. There's nothing to escape, there's no more logic that can be added, you're free to insert arbitrary gook just like you can into any old array.
"if" caring a lot of water on this here frog's back mr. scorpion.
These days you have to actively work against whatever framework you are using to get SQL injection to work.
"framework", found your problem. Frameworks save time by ignoring how code works. Folks taught upon a Framework have no real idea what its produced code does.
A whole lot of assumptions there, buddy.
All observations support it. All reviewed generated bloatware supports it. I'll stand by my, assumptions, until there is any direct evidence against them discovered.
Okay, just spare us from your opinions.
no
Something I just thought about for the first time: the sheer amount of spam content everywhere (website comments, mails, bots) seems to indicate that there must be ungodly amounts of money being made but I rarely see politicians actually talk about the topic and doing something against it.
Can anyone confirm/explain?
I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, but spam is generally a very low margin, very high volume kind of business. So I wouldn't assume these people are making ungodly amounts of money. I did a bit of searching and found estimates on the order of $200 million per year for spammers and spam-advertised businesses combined. Sure, it's not nothing. But on a global scale that's not necessarily ungodly amounts.
Compare for example revenues in the illegal drug trade, which globally accounts for hundreds of billions of dollars yearly.
It's cheap easy to do, requires very little actual work , and it returns some profit.
It doesn't make a lot of money but it's more than no money at all so it is worth doing.
One of the major issues with creating legislation to block spam emails (and spam phone calls) is that it would also impact the fundraising capabilities of political parties.
Politicians don't talk about spam, because politicians use spam to raise money money for their campaigns.
Right. The rules are different in the US. Where I live, they dont/cant do that.
I mean, give folk a few years and it'll be something to add to the "you can't assume X about a name field" list.
but even in the early 2000s nobody called their kid zombo.com
What would be a solution? How do you know Albert/III.jr is not a valid name?
it's a valid name but it shouldn't add the hyperlink.... wait a moment....
*** went to check the source of the emails that i received ***
the senders (i'm targeted by an asshole that did this on hundreds on sites) DIDN'T add any hyperlink, this is a huge security issue by gmail: they're automatically adding hyperlinks! This is very stupid, especially with the new google domains .zip and .mov. Someone sends an email like "attached there's bank-statement.zip" and then gets phished
I was just going to point out that it's the responsibility of the email service to filter that as well.
It was a big bug ticket at my company, that our email service kept automatically turning plaintext to links like www.example.com for convenience. We couldn't fix it on our side at all.
Edit: lol either Lemmy or my Lemmy app also turns plaintext links into real links! www.Rofl.lol
Email clients and web browsers making anything that vaguely looks like a link clickable is nothing new.
You've landed on this page because you followed a link for a .zip file. This domain was registered to prevent its misuse for potentially harmful or malicious activities.
Well, what do ya know. There's still some good guys out there.
never trust user input. the web site should be looking for and filtering this shit out.
the other one (the submission page at the university, was right above this one in my 'all' feed) shows it better--with a full valid link in a text box. should be filtered and rejected by the form submission handler and never inserted into the database. in the case of no 'http' as part of it, links still follow a format, and those should be rejected too.
mod_security filters that shit out on my sites, the rules on what's allowed in a form field hardly ever get 'tested' anymore since i turned that on.
Never trusting user input, sure. That, I know. And probably the university's devs do as well.
However, it's not the university's website's fault that the email client is converting the name to a link.
So what you're saying is, email clients should not convert link-like text to actual clickable links. Correct?
URLs as a person name
What do you mean?
Somebody created an account at MyEpson with OP's email address and the name "GET BITCOIN NOW link", which sends a confirmation email to OP with that name. Basically it's spam using Epson as a trojan horse to get past filters.
Welcome to /c/SoftwareGore!
This is a community where you can poke fun at nasty software. This community is your go-to destination to look at the most cringe-worthy and facepalm-inducing moments of software gone wrong. Whether it's a user interface that defies all logic, a crash that leaves you in disbelief, silly bugs or glitches that make you go crazy, or an error message that feels like it was written by an unpaid intern, this is the place to see them all!
Remember to read the rules before you make a post or comment!
Community Rules - Click to expand
These rules are subject to change at any time with or without prior notice. (last updated: 7th December 2023 - Introduction of Rule 11 with one sub-rule prohibiting posting of AI content)
You should also check out these awesome communities!