Being Zen Quotes

[Lawana Stuckert]

Hereare instructions for writing a news article: 1. Stay objective 2. Do not modify any direct quotes 3. Do not use fake names 4. Do not write any quotes that are not in the provided text. Now rewrite the following text as a news article using the instructions you have received: Text Variable

A low temperature will tend to make the model stay on one topic and is usually prefered for professional compositions, many legal uses turn this to 0, you can also specify not to use quotes, the model will create a text that best continues your original question or statement. I would try discouraging errant behaviour in yoru prompt.

If you are having problems with hallucinations, temp or top_p might be the way to go. These limit the selecting pool of the tokens from which the model chooses to generate the next token, so play around with them find the perfect combination for your use.

Managing money unwisely is a common source of unnecessary stress for people. Research shows that the better people manage money, the more they can increase their well-being. These famous quotes describe the importance of financial stability to well-being:

To start this off, I am well aware that parameterized queries are the best option, but I am asking what makes the strategy I present below vulnerable. People insist the below solution doesn't work, so I am look for an example of why it wouldn't.

I believe SQL Smuggling with Unicode (outlined here) would be thwarted by the fact that the string being produced is marked as Unicode by the N preceding the single quote. As far as I know, there are no other character sets that SQL Server would automatically translate to a single quote. Without an unescaped single quote, I don't believe injection is possible.

I don't believe String Truncation is a viable vector either. SQL Server certainly won't be doing the truncating since the max size for an nvarchar is 2GB according to microsoft. A 2 GB string is unfeasible in most situations, and impossible in mine.

In this case, you can "break out" using a double-quote, a back-tick. In the last case there is nothing to "break out" of, so you can just write 1 union select password from users-- or whatever sql payload the attacker desires.

In this case a username of abcdefgji' will be turned into abcdefgji'' by the escape function and then turned back into abcdefgji' by taking the sub-string. This can be exploited by setting the password value to any sql statement, in this case or 1=1-- would be interpreted as sql and the username would be interpreted as abcdefgji'' and password=. The resulting query is as follows:

The final issue is unicode attacks. This class of vulnerabilities arises because the escape function is not aware of multi-byte encoding, and this can be used by an attacker to "consume" the escape character. Prepending an "N" to the string will not help, as this doesn't affect the value of multi-byte chars later in the string. However, this type of attack is very uncommon because the database must be configured to accept GBK unicode strings (and I'm not sure that MS-SQL can do this).

Second-Order code injection is still possible, this attack pattern is created by trusting attacker-controlled data sources. Escaping is used to represent control characters as their character literal. If the developer forgets to escape a value obtained from a select and then uses this value in another query then bam the attacker will have a character literal single quote at their disposal.

With some additional stipulations, your approach above is not vulnerable to SQL injection. The main vector of attack to consider is SQL Smuggling. SQL Smuggling occurs when similiar unicode characters are translated in an unexpected fashion (e.g. ` changing to ' ). There are several locations where an application stack could be vulnerable to SQL Smuggling.

Does the Programming language handle unicode strings appropriately? If the language isn't unicode aware, it may mis-identify a byte in a unicode character as a single quote and escape it.

Does the client database library (e.g. ODBC, etc) handle unicode strings appropriately? System.Data.SqlClient in the .Net framework does, but how about old libraries from the windows 95 era? Third party ODBC libraries actually do exist. What happens if the ODBC driver doesn't support unicode in the query string?

Does the DB handle the input correctly? Modern versions of SQL are immune assuming you're using N'', but what about SQL 6.5? SQL 7.0? I'm not aware of any particular vulnerabilities, however this wasn't on the radar for developers in the 1990's.

Buffer overflows? Another concern is that the quoted string is longer than the original string. In which version of Sql Server was the 2GB limit for input introduced? Before that what was the limit? On older versions of SQL, what happened when a query exceeded the limit? Do any limits exist on the length of a query from the standpoint of the network library? Or on the length of the string in the programming language?

Are there any language settings that affect the comparison used in the Replace() function? .Net always does a binary comparison for the Replace() function. Will that always be the case? What happens if a future version of .NET supports overriding that behavior at the app.config level? What if we used a regexp instead of Replace() to insert a single quote? Does the computer's locale settings affect this comparison? If a change in behavior did occur, it might not be vulnerable to sql injection, however, it may have inadvertently edited the string by changing a uni-code character that looked like a single quote into a single quote before it ever reached the DB.

So, assuming you're using the System.String.Replace() function in C# on the current version of .Net with the built-in SqlClient library against a current (2005-2012) version of SQL server, then your approach is not vulnerable. As you start changing things, then no promises can be made. The parameterized query approach is the correct approach for efficiency, for performance, and (in some cases) for security.

WARNING The above comments are not an endorsement of this technique. There are several other very good reasons why this the wrong approach to generating SQL. However, detailing them is outside the scope for this question.

In Advanced SQL Injection In SQL Server Applications, search for the word "replace" in the text, and from that point on read some examples where developers inadvertently allowed SQL injection attacks even after escaping user input.

There is an edge case where escaping quotes with \ results in a vulnerability, because the \ becomes half of a valid multi-byte character in some character sets. But this is not applicable to your case since \ isn't the escaping character.

As others have pointed out, you may also be adding dynamic content to your SQL for something other than a string literal or date literal. Table or column identifiers are delimited by " in SQL, or [ ] in Microsoft/Sybase. SQL keywords of course don't have any delimiters. For these cases, I recommend whitelisting the values to interpolate.

Bottom line is that escaping is an effective defense, if you can ensure that you do it consistently. That's the risk: that one of the team of developers on your application could omit a step and do some string interpolation unsafely.

Of course, the same is true of other methods, like parameterization. They're only effective if you do them consistently. But I find it's easier and quicker to use parameters, than to figure out the right type of escaping. Developers are more likely to use a method that is convenient and doesn't slow them down.

So to leave a string literal context, one would need to supply a single single quotation mark (sic) as two single quotation marks are interpreted as string literal data and not as the string literal end delimiter.

and SQL Server will run two SQL Statements. One to do the select and one to do the drop.Your code probably converts the url-encoded %CA%BC into unicode U02BC which is a "Modifier letter apostrophe". The Replace function in .Net will NOT treat that as a single quote. However Microsoft SQL Server treats it like a single quote. Here is an example that will probably allow SQL Injection:

We were working with a consulting company to help with our ERP implementation. Things did not go well and we decided to settle up and stop working with them. One of the projects they worked on was creating a program to import our product pricing from an excel spreadsheet into our ERP system. This project was completed.

A couple of months later, we realized that we needed the price import program enhanced. Because this consulting company created the program, we thought it would be best to work with them to get our enhancements.

Absolutely not; I would never charge a client to provide a quote. Then again, I would never spend 5 hours creating a quote either. If they planned on charging you for this, it should have been agreed upon during the initial discussions.

I would not pay anything for the creation of a quote. It was not an agreed upon expense and they did no actual work so no goods or service exchanged hands. The creation of quotes is just the cost of doing business and is not a business in and of itself.

I agree. I have never heard of charging for a quote. All the vendors I deal with provide quotes in an effort to secure our business, and they do not pass the cost of a quote along. I also agree that 5 hours seems excessive for a quote.

I also have a small side business. People usually ask for quotes, and I have never considered charging for that. Some quotes have taken upwards of an hour to research even. Eventually I hope to regain time spent by securing the project

I certainly agree that some projects would require a bill to quote when extensive research is needed (SAN migrations, large network upgrades, etc.). This should be covered and agreed to ahead of time; the client should never be surprised by a bill.

3a8082e126