4 ms·
I completely agree and I also said this in my original comment you replied to. This is why I got confused when you said "but we should acknowledge..." (ie thin
by laumars 7y ago
I completely agree and I also said this in my original comment you replied to.
This is why I got confused when you said "but we should acknowledge..." (ie thinking you were raising a point other than what myself and others had already acknowledged).
- mannykannot 7y agoIt is not clear to me that the post I originally replied to did acknowledge this point.
- laumars 7y ago> You shouldn’t need to sanitise your inputs > Output is a different matter though "Output" doesn't have to be front end rendered nor even internet facing. It could also be input for another internal process.
- mannykannot 7y agoIndeed, so there was a point to be made.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- laumars 7y agoI honestly don't understand what the point you're trying to make is then. If you're saying people should be aware that handling data safely requires more steps than just parametrised SQL then yes I touched on that, as have others, and it's not something anyone is unaware of. Hence why there has been so many high quality posts discussing the different methods of validation, sanitisation and escaping. So it's a rather strange position to assume when you say "we need to acknowledge" given that's what everyone (including me) has been doing. But it never hurts to be categoric about important points like that so your original post is still relevant. If you're making some other point then I've already had two stabs at deciphering it and failed both times. So it's really not clear what that point is. However if your intention was just trolling me then fine, I bit and you won.