Thread

1. mikestew · 1790117337 · focus · HN ↗

   Here’s my problem with reviving FoxPro in any form: there’s a huge security hole in the Database Container (DBC) design. For DBCs to be useful, they must be read/write to all users (there is no permissions scheme). DBCs have stored procedures that can run any FoxPro code, including Win32 calls made from the FoxPro runtime. The stored procedures are stored as plain text in a “memo” field. Do you see where this is going? With a little technical knowledge, one can modify that INSERT trigger to whatever you like. EDIT: as the DB is just files in the file system, modifications can be made using a text editor, bypassing any checks in the FoxPro runtime. FoxPro just executes what it finds in there.

   My recommendation is to get rid of the DBF/DBC files and move to a SQL DB of some flavor ASAP. If you have the source code, use ODBC or OLE DB to point to a server.

   Source: filed that bug over 20 years ago when I worked on the Fox team. No, it wasn’t going to get fixed without rewriting large parts of how the DB engine worked.

   1. userbinator · 1790122992 · focus · HN ↗

      there is no permissions scheme

      If you already have full access by design, then there's no "huge security hole" either.

      1. mikestew · 1790125079 · focus · HN ↗

         Well, I had to call it something. File system DBs were a problem long before FoxPro’s DBCs, yes. Yes, it’s an architectural decision. Sharp cookies would just modify the files directly. But that would just trash data (or bump my hourly rate in the HR DB). Most of the time, “full access to data” doesn’t necessarily mean “run arbitrary code”. In this case, it does, which I don’t think folks expect, hence “hole”.

         1. Shorel · 1790164382 · focus · HN ↗

            There's a category in the OWASP Top 6, called: Insecure Design.

            It is top 6 in their vulnerabilities ranking.

            This is definitely insecure design.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.