4 ms·
This looks really interesting, but I'm wondering how you came up with the spec for the command language. It seems a bit arbitrary and since this meant to be us
by timvdalen 9y ago
This looks really interesting, but I'm wondering how you came up with the spec for the command language.
It seems a bit arbitrary and since this meant to be used in a machine-to-machine context and for security, wouldn't a binary protocol make more sense (which would get you smaller transfer size and resistance all sorts of string-based terminator attacks)?
- jeswin 9y agoI was aiming for the command to be human readable and easy to parse. Transfer size isn't a major concern imho since commands will be very short in length. But I admit I haven't thought very much about how it could be attacked. Do you see potential holes here? The syntax is: {command} with key1=val1, key2=val2, key3=val3;{signature}
- timvdalen 9y agoI don't see anything obvious, but a string-delimited system is more vulnerable in general (especially if the spec grows). Consider for instance that the escaping of comma's wouldn't be necessary in a binary protocol.