Question

In terms of jQuery (or Javascript), what happens behind the scenes when a person posts a comment on Facebook, Twitter, or a blog?

For instance, do they sanitize the text first, and then pattern match URL’s into an actual link? Are there other items of concern that the client-side should check in addition to doing some checks on the backend?

I have found a few regex’s for turning URL’s into links, but I’m not sure if there are better solutions.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the problem, but I’m having a difficult time knowing where to start. Any guidance you can provide is greatly appreciated!

Answer 1

This is a matter of opinion (in my opinion) so I’ll CW this answer. Here’s my opnion as a bona-fide citizen of the Internet:

1. There are two broad kinds of “sanitization”: one is semantic sanitization, where input is checked to make sure it’s what it’s supposed to be (phone number, postal code, currency amount, whatever). The other is defensive sanitization, which is (again, in my opinion) a generally misguided, user-hostile activity.
2. Really, input is never really scary until it touches something: the database server, an HTML renderer, a JavaScript interpreter, and so on. The list is long.

As to point 1, I think that defensive sanitization is misguided because it ignores point 2 above: without knowing what environment you’re defending from malicious input, you can’t really sanitize it without greatly restricting the input alphabet, and even then the process may be fighting against itself. It’s user-hostile because it needlessly restricts what legitimate users can do with the data they want to keep in their account. Who is to say that me wanting to include in my “comments” or “nickname” or “notes” fields characters that look like XML, or SQL, or any other language’s special characters? If there’s no semantic reason to filter inputs, why do that to your users?

Point 2 is really the crux of this. User input can be dangerous because server-side code (or client-side code, for that matter) can hand it over directly to unsuspecting interpretation environments where meta-characters important to each distinct environment can cause unexpected behavior. If you hand untouched user input directly to SQL by pasting it directly into a query template, then special SQL meta-characters like quotes can be used by a malicious user to control the database in ways you definitely don’t want. However, that alone is no reason to prevent me from telling you that my name is “O’Henry”.

The key issue with point 2 is that there are many different interpretation environments, and each of them is completely distinct as far as the threat posed by user input. Let’s list a few:

• SQL – quote marks in user input are a big potential problem; specific DB servers may have other exploitable syntax conventions
• HTML – when user input is dropped straight into HTML, the browser’s HTML parser will happily obey whatever embedded markup tells it to do, including run scripts, load tracker images, and whatever else. The key meta-characters are “<“, “>”, and “&” (the latter not so much because of attacks, but because of the mess they cause). It’s probably also good to worry about quotes here too because user input may need to go inside HTML element attributes.
• JavaScript – if a page template needs to put some user input directly into some running JavaScript code, the things to worry about are probably quotes (if the input is to be treated as a JavaScript string). If the user input needs to go into a regular expression, then a lot more scrubbing is necessary.
• Logfiles – yes, logfiles. How do you look at logfiles? I do it on a simple command-line window on my Linux box. Such command-line “console” applications generally obey ancient “escape sequences” that date back to old ASCII terminals, for controlling cursor position and various other things. Well, embedded escape sequences in cleverly crafted user input can be used for crazy attacks that leverage those escape sequences; the general idea is to have some user input get dropped into some log file (maybe as part of a page error log) and trick an administrator into scrolling through the logfile in an xterm window. Wild, huh?

The key point here is that the exact techniques necessary to protect those environments from malformed or malicious input differ significantly from one to the next. Protecting your SQL server from malicious quotes is a completely different problem from guarding those quotes in HTML or JavaScript (and note that both of those are totally different from each other too!).

The bottom line: my opinion, therefore, is that the proper focus of attention when worrying about potentially malformed or malicious input is the process of writing user data, not reading it. As each fragment of user-supplied data is used by your software in cooperation with each interpreting environment, a “quoting” or “escaping” operation has to be done, and it has to be an operation specific to the target environment. How exactly that’s arranged may vary all over the place. Traditionally in SQL, for example, one uses prepared statements, though there are times when the deficiencies of prepared statements make that approach difficult. When spitting out HTML, most server-side frameworks have all sorts of built-in hooks for HTML or XML escaping with entity notation (like & for “&”). Nowadays, the simplest way to protect things for Javascript is to leverage a JSON serializer, though of course there are other ways to go.