Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment by syzo
syzo  ·  1173 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Hubski Update: Welcome rob05c! + more tag info

    To prevent double escaping of certain characters, they are run through MD5 after being escaped once, and then the MD5 is undone at the end. Since the MD5 is the same every time, someone figured out that if you just put the MD5 into your comment, it would be unescaped at the end.

I can only assume "MD5" is something to do with Markdown and not the hash function. Otherwise, what the fuck am I reading?




rob05c  ·  1172 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    I can only assume "MD5" is something to do with Markdown and not the hash function.

Nope.

    what the fuck am I reading?

That is, in fact, the only sane response to Perl.

rob05c  ·  1172 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.
syzo  ·  1172 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Wait hang on, I'm all confused. Is there a reason you can't just take an input, sanitize it, then lex+parse it like you would any other compiled thing (which Markdown is, markdown -> HTML), and spit out the HTML at the end? What's with this MD5 to escape some characters to "prevent double escaping"?

I have admittedly not looked much into markdown implementations, especially for forum-like sites like Reddit.

mknod  ·  1172 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Sanatizing it often causes its own problems including losing things like spaces, or having a ridiculous regex that depends on knowing what the user intends on inputting. For example are we going to sanitize for "? Well what about “ or ❝ ?

The solution you've come up with is the old programming problem:

' a programmer has a problem that they solve with regex, now they have 2 problems '

I don't necessarily agree with their solution but it can be easy to see how they came to it. 🐐 here is an unsanitized goat.

syzo  ·  1171 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Sanatizing it often causes its own problems including losing things like spaces, or having a ridiculous regex that depends on knowing what the user intends on inputting. For example are we going to sanitize for "? Well what about “ or ❝ ?

Just the bare minimum, basically anything that would come out as HTML or scripts, so you can't do <b>this</b> or <?php echo("this"); ?> or <script>alert("this");</script>

So just turn "<" into "&lt;" and ">" into "&gt;" and you should be good to go? You need to make sure you can't SQL inject, too (the issue with those quotation characters, I imagine) - I obviously haven't thought of this too far and I'm sure there's a bunch of issues like that. There usually are libraries to do input sanitizing, aren't there?

Then, Markdown can handle the rest as normal, which sounds like it's the harder issue with specifying a grammar and building a lexer+parser off it. Markdown would probably ignore things like “ or ❝ or 🐐 and treat them as normal characters.

    🐐 here is an unsanitized goat.

Get it together, goat. Wash your hands more often!

Saw the goat on my phone but not on my desktop browser :(

mknod  ·  1171 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yeah I too am ignorant for the reasons they did this, and feel like your method is probably a better mix of the right direction approach. Computationally it might have something to do with it, there might be some data to support looking up a hash in postgresql vs a string is computationally better than generating some text processing.

Like I said though "I dunno!"

mknod  ·  1172 days ago  ·  link  ·  

When I see stuff like this I just imagine whiskey played a large part.