-J all

[DigitalDesigns]

On Monday, 11 June 2018 at 05:15:05 UTC, Cym13 wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 at 19:10:52 UTC, DigitalDesigns wrote:
>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 at 14:42:21 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 at 01:49:37 UTC, DigitalDesigns wrote:
>>>> Please allow -J to specify that all subdirectories are to be 
>>>> included! I'm having to include all subdirectories of my 
>>>> library with J because I import each file and extract 
>>>> information. It would be better to have something like
>>>>
>>>> -JC:\Lib\*
>>>>
>>>> rather than
>>>>
>>>> -JC:\Lib\Internal
>>>> -JC:\Lib\Internal\OS
>>>> -JC:\Lib\API
>>>> -JC:\Lib\API\V1
>>>> -JC:\Lib\API\V1\Templates
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> ..
>>>> .
>>>
>>> This is opened as an enhancement request now: 
>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18967. IIRC there 
>>> was a security concern mentioned last time this was proposed, 
>>> not 100% sure.
>>
>> Yeah, but -J was added for a security concern! So when does 
>> the insanity end?
>
> There's no contradiction nor insanity, you're saying the same 
> thing he did: -J was added for a security concern.

No I'm not, which proves the insanity is still here:

He's saying that *'s wasn't added out of security concerns:

"This is opened as an enhancement request now: 
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18967. IIRC there was a 
security concern mentioned last time this was proposed, not 100% 
sure."

And I'm saying that -J was implemented out of security concerns.

So, -J was added for security concerns and * was rejected out of 
security concerns!

Please don't be insane, thanks.


>> If it's such a big, e.g., to prevent root access then limit 
>> asterisk usage to non root and maybe only a depth of 3.
>>
>> After all, if someone wanted access to sensitive areas just do 
>> -JC:\Windows\System32.
>>
>> At some point one has to stop policing everything.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what the threat model is, but it seems to 
> me that we're not trying to protect against an user exposing 
> sensitive areas. We're trying to protect against code that 
> isn't trusted at compile time. I think the idea is to avoid 
> allowing someone to import your config file with all passwords 
> at compile-time so that it can use it or send it later at 
> runtime to the attacker.

Yes, that is the point, else why restrict access? So -J was added 
so we could get around it because one has to be able to get 
around it. But dmd makes it hard for humans to get around it 
because they have to go look up all the directories they want to 
add and add each one separately. If a D compile time program is 
going to use dmd to steal something, it can do it either way.

It is easy for a program to parse multiple directories in to 
several commands but more difficult for a human. So adding * is 
not much of a threat and it could be limited if someone feels 
like it is too much.

-J is a blaring security hole if one really wants to get down to 
it. I wouldn't use D if I could it it to import files at compile 
time. It breaks all my apps... specially since not one D compile 
time virus exists(I'm sure someone will run out and make one).

So, lets go to the chalk board to make sure you understand: -J is 
a restriction to prevent any D source code from opening external 
files using import except what is listed under -J. Not having 
wildcard support further restricts ones freedom as it requires 
one to list many extra paths. If * was supported then it would 
make using -J much easier without it? it is much harder.

-J added for security and (not *) added for security. So we have 
security on top of security... that is the insanity I was 
speaking of. Who's idea is to secure D when no one even bothers 
to use it to do some potential something that no one could really 
describe except basic hacking.

I mean, after all, if someone uses dmd to somehow steal file 
information then they almost surely could do it without it and 
when they compile they can just use -J with the directory of the 
info they want. So, there is really no point in -J in the first 
place. You could say that it would be better to be safe than 
sorry... of course, that is where the insanity comes from! Are we 
really any safer? Where are all these D CT viruses at that I'm 
being protected from?!?! And why having they figured out ways to 
hack -J?

After all, if this malicious code is ran then it can surely 
replace dmd.exe with an imposter and feed it -J so the next time 
it is ran would be able then to have access to -J the next time 
it is ran.

At some point in the distant future am I going to have to wear a 
condom to program in D?