On Wednesday 05 April 2006 2:16 pm, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Michael Segel wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 April 2006 12:33 pm, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> >>Michael Segel wrote:
> >>>On Tuesday 04 April 2006 6:23 pm, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> >>>>Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> >>>>>May I suggest that if you are writing samples for others to use that
> >>>>> you demonstrate use of parameter markers in PreparedStatements. This
> >>>>> will perfom better on Derby and all other relational database
> >>>>> engines.
> >>>>
> >>>>Another reason to use PreparedStatements is to avoid all the security
> >>>>concerns that come with SQL injection issues.
> >>>
> >>>[SNIP]
> >>>
> >>>Uhm, I'm afraid this has nothing to do with the issue at hand, along
> >>> with the fact that its not exactly true....
> >>
> >>Could you expand on what is "not exactly true"?
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > Your said "Another reason to use PreparedStatements is to avoid all the
> > security concerns that come with SQL injection issues." as a benefit of a
> > prepared statement over a regular statement.
> >
> > This is not 100% true. You're implying that using a Statement has some
> > stigma of security concerns. You can effectively use a Statement in a
> > manner that does not create a potential of SQL injection issues. Thus no
> > benefit.
>
> Any time you build the SQL text from user input you run the risk of SQL
> injection, your example below even shows that. I was assuming the
> typical model with PreparedStatements that the SQL text is fixed by the
> application and parameter subsitution is performed using parameter
> markers and not modifying the SQL text.
>
Ok,
Look at it this way.
You're going to be using user input if you use either a Prepared Statement or
just a regular statement. If you don't bother to perform business logic
checks and validate that input, you're going to run in to trouble. Period.
The point being is that a prepared statement offers no more inherit protection
that just a regular statement.
> > Again looking at the code :
> >
> > String s1 = "SELECT * FROM employee WHERE emp_id = "+empID+";";
> > String s2 = "SELECT * FROM employee WHERE emp_id = ?";
> >
> > Now in both statements, you are passing in the emp_id, presumably from
> > the end user's input.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now... Note that there is no chance of SQL Injection, hence your argument
> > of an advantage of using PreparedStatement is moot.
>
> With the statement case there is every chance of SQL injection. If empID
> is a String (or becomes a String later when someone modifies the
> application) then SQL injection is possible. With the PreparedStatement
> it isn't.
>
Really?
So I prepare a statement and I say pstmt.setString(n, empID) and its going to
automatically validate the input?
I really don't think so.
setString
public void setString(int parameterIndex,
String x)
throws SQLException
Sets the designated parameter to the given Java String value. The driver
converts this to an SQL VARCHAR or LONGVARCHAR value (depending on the
argument's size relative to the driver's limits on VARCHAR values) when it
sends it to the database.
Parameters:
parameterIndex - the first parameter is 1, the second is 2, ...
x - the parameter value
Throws:
SQLException - if a database access error occurs
Nothing here about validating the data.
> Dan.
--
--
Michael Segel
Principal
Michael Segel Consulting Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(312) 952-8175 [mobile]
