Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I've hacked together a really quick infobot plugin, that Laotse on Rhizomatic uses. However, there's someone working in a WWW:Search interface, so when that's released, I'll write a plugin around that, and apply it to CVS.
  • Security (Score:4, Informative)

    by Matts (1087) on 2002.04.12 8:22 (#6910) Journal
    The security problems don't affect the SOAP client in SOAP::Lite.
    • Here here. The SOAP::Lite FUD on use.perl is getting old fast.

      -sam
      • Re:Security (Score:2, Informative)

        Rubbish. There's no FUD. It is a very serious security problem that people need to know about it before they install the module, or if they have already installed it. You don't like it? Tough.
        • So just having the module installed puts you at risk? That, my friend, is pure FUD. In fact, most usages of the module put you in no appreciable risk at all. The only risky situation requires:

          1. You setup a public SOAP server outside your internal network.
          2. You use autodispatch, which is certainly not the most obvious was to use SOAP::Lite.

          Neither of these has anything to do with using SOAP::Lite to call methods in Google's SOAP service.

          -sam

          • Re:Security (Score:4, Informative)

            by pudge (1) on 2002.04.14 16:16 (#6969) Homepage Journal
            So just having the module installed puts you at risk?

            No one ever said or hinted that. It is very simple: the module has a serious security problem and people who install it should know about it. This is not rocket science. Please stop with your nonsense. Thanks.
            • Re:Security (Score:3, Interesting)

              I'm sorry for being rude in the two previous posts, it wasn't proper. I stand by the substance, though. I am very grateful to Paul Kulchenko and I like SOAP::Lite a lot, but I will continue to notify people of security problems like this in the future.
  • I'm one of those fools who always worries about grammar, and as such, sure to lose any friends I have here. No offense intended; not trying to hurt anyone's feelings or anything, but Google is singular [slashdot.org]

    --
    J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
    • Nah, bring it on. I don't think blech is in any position to complain about people being pendantic about such things ;-)
    • Before criticizing someone's grammar, make sure they're using the same dialect you are. Just because something's different from what you're used to [bartleby.com] doesn't mean it's wrong.
      • I stand corrected. [slashdot.org](Shame I didn't learn this while I was in Europe during the last two weeks.

        --
        J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
        • And while nitpicking I'll flame myself for missing a parenthesis.

          I also stand surprised, as well as corrected. I thought that was something like an immutable grammar law for many languages, and I figured British English would have been a real stickler for it.

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
        • Mind you, /. isn't British.
          --
            ---ict / Spoon
  • Let's use this to continuously search for terms that will titillate the eavesdroppers! From EFF's US Patriot Act analysis [eff.org]. "Be careful what you put in that Google search. The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This appli