New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[bug] taint mode and instruction modifier #6003
Comments
From @jquelinHere's a strange behavior. Under taint mode, using instruction modifiers does not get the same result as $ perl -Tle '$cmd="print q(foo)";$cmd.=".q(bar)" if pop; eval $cmd' foo This behavior seems rather strange to me. This bug is present in: (see below)$ perl -V Characteristics of this binary (from libperl):
|
From goldbb2@earthlink.netJerome Quelin (via RT) wrote:
Any time that you say If EXPR2 is tainted, the taint propogates into EXPR1. On windows95, either of the following: -- |
From @jquelinOn Samedi 12 Octobre 2002 09:14, Benjamin Goldberg (via RT) wrote:
I agree that if you say: that EXPR3 should be tainted if EXPR2 is tainted. But why does EXPR1 gets I can also imagine that: would taint EXPR3 if EXPR2 is tainted. The two ifs are supposed to work the same way...
Can't understand this... What do you want to say? That I can't use the -T See you, |
From @schwernOn Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 03:19:42AM -0400, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
Why does it do that? EXPR1 isn't altered by EXPR2. The only effect EXPR2 -- Michael G. Schwern <schwern@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ |
From goldbb2@earthlink.netMichael G Schwern wrote:
Umm, err, now *that*, I don't have an answer to. I'm just saying that Laundering and Detecting Tainted Data To test whether a variable contains tainted data, and whose use would sub is_tainted { This function makes use of the fact that the presence of tainted data -- |
From @schwernOn Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 03:22:02PM -0400, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
<snip>
Ahh, ok. An optimization hack. -- Michael G. Schwern <schwern@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ |
From @jquelinOn Monday 14 October 2002 23:55, Michael G Schwern (via RT) wrote:
The whole expression is considered tainted, yes, but not every sub-expression And that's what the docs say. At least, that's how I understand them. :-) Jerome |
From @iabynI'm marking it as not-a-bug, because it's documented behaviour. The "bad" code can be reduced to which is equivalent to $^X && ($cmd .= "a"); # $cmd is tainted The expression becomes tainted by $^X, so the concatenation |
@iabyn - Status changed from 'open' to 'rejected' |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#17867 (status was 'rejected')
Searchable as RT17867$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: