How to say you’re vulnerable to code injection without saying you’re vulnerable to code injection.
Maybe they filtered those strings to be safe, and put the notice there to answer the invertible “why won’t it accept my password” queries.
It’s a shitty password engine. But not necessarily uncleansed
If they’re trying to protect themselves from code injection by rejecting certain user input like that, then they don’t actually know how to protect themselves from code injection correctly and there may be serious vulnerabilities that they’ve missed.
(I think it’s likely that, as others have said, they’re using off-the-shelf software that does properly sanitize user input, and that this is just the unnecessary result of management making ridiculous demands. Even then, it’s evidence of an organization that doesn’t have the right approach to security.)
This is the result of some doc writer or middle manager not fully understanding what they’ve been told.
Little Bobby drop tables
Looking at that I wouldn’t be surprised if those rules are just client-side validation.
Obligatory Little Bobby Tables: https://xkcd.com/327/
And for those who feel like saying they’ve already seen it: https://xkcd.com/1053/
So they’re not hashing or salting the passwords too. Cool…
submits Drop Table as passphrase
Grabs popcorn
I don’t believe this is real. This isn’t real, right?
This is real - I took the screenshot myself.
Oh BobbyTables, you little rapscallion…
Didn’t say anything about truncate!
We could still have some fun with ALTER TABLE
I wonder, if you turn off JavaScript, does it allow you to perform SQL injections?
Is the front end the only thing protection or is the backend “also” doing work?
