3 ms·
I’m curious about the extent to which DOS is a concern for an interpreter like this. I can see it be an issue if you’re exposing a service to external actors, b
by dhosek 4y ago
I’m curious about the extent to which DOS is a concern for an interpreter like this. I can see it be an issue if you’re exposing a service to external actors, but how big of a concern is it really in this context?
- mastax 4y agoI'm going to assume that at least one popular interpreter uses a weak hash function for its hashtables/objects, and I haven't ever heard about it being an issue.
- loeg 4y agoIt was a big problem for web-facing services in interpreted languages "back in the day." All the dynamic languages basically fixed this problem ten years ago (or 20 years ago for Perl): https://lwn.net/Articles/474912/ https://lwn.net/Articles/474912/ If you weren't going to expose clox to the web or other untrusted input (and why would you), it's not a concern.
- rstuart4133 4y agoI went down that rabbit hole myself after reading the article. This sums up the situation: https://sudonull.com/post/127497-Non-cryptographic-hash-functions-and-DoS-attack-on-them https://sudonull.com/post/127497-Non-cryptographic-hash-func...