alt Hacker NewsThis is a side-effect of Unix-y "it's all plain text" design that leans extremely heavily upon in-band signalling (among other design decisions).
If /etc/shadow was a JSON (or XML, even, although that would make me feel gross), this bug would have been much easier to see, because a field that reads '"hash": ""' sticks out a lot* more than a custom microformat that you don't understand.
With data structures, there's never "plain text" - it's all structured. The question is whether you want to use existing formats and tools, or create a new one for every tool and literally make footguns like this.
Replies
At this point I’m resigning myself to think that we’ve just gotta wait for some people to die. It feels very dramatic and glib (no pun intended lol) and whatever to say, but at this point it feels like there’s a certain hostility in some parts to changing anything from the platonic ideals of however computing happened to work in 2004. “Oh we don’t need to mess with it!”
The issue isn't the config, but the fact that crypt() doesn't have any way to signal failure. In better designed languages you would have exceptions, result types, or something. Even in C you have "return integer indicating success or error" which would've prevented the confusion.
Now the public API is hard to change but you could still avoid the issue by returning a longer token like "==DANGEROUS_CRYPT_ERROR_length==" or "==DANGEROUS_CRYPT_ERROR_unsupported_alg==" which would never match the password field unless someone was really trying to induce the issue.
Yes, absolutely. Take for example this cURL command:
NO_PROXY=1 curl -qs --data @./my\ message.txt -- \
"https://user:[email protected]/user/${userid}/my%20message.txt"
We have seriously overused strings and we're now paying the price.
I'd say another UNIX-y thing - "C is good enough" - is part of the problem. C makes programming painful which results in all sorts of hacks.
E.g. in Pascal you can can define a record and then defined file of record to have typed I/O. I.e. it comes with built-in serialization format supported by compiler. Not a good one - but perhaps a step in a good direction.
OTOH C people starving for serialization often believe that `struct` byte layout made by a specific version of a compiler is a serialization format - a view not endorsed by the standard.
A few years back I un-bashed my life as much as possible in favor of nushell (though it's not the only shell to encourage structure). I feel like it has really helped me notice a lot of this-needs-more-structure type problems outside of my shell that I otherwise wouldn't have.
The elegance of the unix-y approach is actually that it's all bits. You can just join things together and shove the bits through, that's a wild simplification compared with having vendor-specific kinds of plugs. But we could have that kind of compatibility while also benefiting from structure.
So I encourage everybody to give a shell with structured output a try, let it rewire your brain, and then ask yourself: how is the OS holding this back from being everything it could be? Because if we build that OS, it won't encourage these problems.
When I imagine it, it would probe either side of a pipe to see if they support negotiation. If not, send the bits through in the same old unixy way. If so, use the newest schema for structured data that is supported by both sides.