3 ms·
He also said to sanitize any data that you intend to use with the unsafe constructors. Taken together, he's pointing out that you decide how much you trust the
by sheepshear 3y ago
He also said to sanitize any data that you intend to use with the unsafe constructors. Taken together, he's pointing out that you decide how much you trust the data and you control which constructor to use. "Problem in chair"
"Should" statements are always relative to what you value. Clearly he thinks this trade-off is fine for him. His other library accommodates your security needs but this one accommodates his convenience needs. Can the man not make something for himself?
I assume it would be costly for him to make and propagate the changes. Maybe money could persuade him.
- richbell 3y ago> He also said to sanitize any data that you intend to use with the unsafe constructors. Taken together, he's pointing out that you decide how much you trust the data and you control which constructor to use. "Problem in chair" That doesn't change the fact that it's a poorly designed API that's insecure by default. There are countless situations where people are inadvertently exposed to risk via transitive dependencies, at no fault of their own. > Can the man not make something for himself? He did not make it for himself, he made it to he consumed by others. SnakeYAML is a widely used package.
- sheepshear 3y agoHe said he designed it for his use case of executing trusted configuration code, which some others appreciate. Obviously there was some misunderstand about the goals and priorities of the project. Making this change would cost him something he values without giving him something else he values in return. According to him, Snake Engine already provides a default safe solution, so he's not leaving anyone without a remedy. It would cost you to switch, but you would get something in return. That seems fair to me.