this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
791 points (98.5% liked)

memes

18061 readers
2616 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk 5 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Spot on.

As for the sanitisation, it can take many forms. Either characters that don't usually appear in the context for that field (in terms of names, you can usually scrub most parentheses, more than one hyphen in a row etc) can be removed; copy it to a known encoded field such as unicode to get rid of characters with unusual properties; and making sure bounds are enforced to avoid overflows.

It should mean that your data is exactly that - raw data, and not commands or operands for the interpreter to act upon.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 9 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Parameterisation entirely solves the problem without needing to sanitise the string

[–] PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk 2 points 12 hours ago

I don't disagree, but throwing out the concept of prepared statements and parameterisation to someone who has asked for an explanation of the Bobby Tables jokes is a bit heavy going.

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 3 points 21 hours ago

Not entirely (I recall seeing some obscure CVEs some years ago), but it's a hell of a lot better than what some coders try to get away with.