[29674] in bugtraq
Re: An Alternate View of Recently Reported PHP Vulnerabilities
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dullien@gmx.de)
Sat Apr 5 16:08:21 2003
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 09:22:37 +0200
From: dullien@gmx.de
Reply-To: dullien@gmx.de
Message-ID: <521951105.20030405092237@gmx.de>
To: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@linus.mitre.org>
In-Reply-To: <200304040428.h344SwRF018372@linus.mitre.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hey Steven , all,
SMC> How many people who audit PHP applications verify that the second
SMC> argument to str_repeat() is valid?
Nobody, because the misbehaviour of this given function is a _bug_ and
thus not documented. Without documenting the valid input ranges, there
can be no "validation", only "guessing that this is now valid".
SMC> How many otherwise innocent functions in PHP can have unexpected
SMC> results if an attacker can control one of the parameters?
Expect the same to hold true for almost any other language. The libc's
these days are relatively "bug-free", but the libraries of PHP etc.
have not undergone the same amount of auditing.
SMC> And maybe entire classes of vulnerabilities that are assumed to be
SMC> specific to a particular language, aren't.
Any vulnerability existing in C is very likely going to occur in other
languages which (in the end) chain down to C-like code.
Cheers,
dullien
PS: Let us please just keep the entire Java discussion out of this :)
--
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
dullien@gmx.de mailto:dullien@gmx.de
