Regarding XML parsing, I ran across this: http://codewhitesec.blogspot.de/2015/03/exploiting-hidden-saxon-xslt-parser-in.html
It's not exactly what I meant but seemed close enough to post. Incidentally, has anyone noticed that the recommended path to security sometimes seems to be "handcuffing" oneself, for some definition of handcuffing and some definition of oneself? For example, standard langsec recommendation, SELinux, sandboxing, MMUs, Trusted Computing all involve restricting power. It's remarkably hard, for example, to find security bugs in COBOL code because without pointers or indexes, you can't really shoot yourself in the foot very easily. It's funny because it goes against the "Real Programmers" inclination we all probably feel, but it reminds me of the transparent plexiglass "bubble" in the US Embassy in Moscow, where sweeping the room for bugs involved simply looking around. "There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies." -- C.A.R. Hoare -- http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ "Computer crime, the glamor crime of the 1970s, will become in the 1980s one of the greatest sources of preventable business loss." John M. Carroll, "Computer Security", first edition cover flap, 1977
pgpjKG8tFFdv9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ langsec-discuss mailing list langsec-discuss@mail.langsec.org https://mail.langsec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/langsec-discuss
