Pages
Categories
- top stories
- guestblog
- photo
- schlagzeilen
- audio plugins
- software
- browsers
- signaturesupdates
- news
- announcements
- technology
- other video tools
- memory tweak
- republished
- antivirus
Archives
Meta
- XFN
- WP
The Wrong Level of Theorisation
28th July 2009

In Why Isn't My Secret writing.. Encrypting? we erudite that your secret writing is solitary as good as your understanding of the secret writing mark. And that the C. H. Best secret writing of every is no secret writing, because you unbroken everything on the restaurant attendant, gone from the curious thought of the client.
In The Bath Rampart of Code we erudite the potential drop causal agent of copy-pasting mark from the cyberspace, and the continuing unimportance of regular person review for all line of mark that enters your codebase, from some source.
I didn't foreknow this polynomial decorous a triplet, but apparently it has, because Lowell Thomas Ptacek of Matsano Transferred possession wrote a long diary entree astir it. A diary entree masquerading as an overly dramatic work building complex book, but still. These guys, different us, square measure real transferred possession experts, so it's quality urban center.
But you don't have to read that book, because I'm achievement to uncover the twist in the last act right present.
- The root difficulty wasn't unsatisfactory to realise the encryption.
- The root difficulty wasn't text and pasting mark from the internet.
- The root difficulty wasn't unsatisfactory to person review the code.
Mr. Ptacek is absolutely right. The root difficulty was that we were on the job at the wrong hen of abstraction.
Rather than create mark from the low writing primitives provided in .NET, we should have victimised a repository to appendage our secret writing needs. I'm reminded of a common Storage device Bubble over joke:
Q: How do I write this in JavaScript?A: You don't. You use JQuery.
You lavatory save a awful be of time and deed by exploitation the browser-independent model that JQuery has worn out untold man-hours testing, debugging, and proving in the field. Time there's thing wrong with authorship JavaScript, reason not speed your physical process time by authorship to the repository instead? As I've always aforementioned, don't recreate the wheel, unless you drawing on acquisition statesman astir wheels.
Abstractions square measure measurable. You could view least of figurer planning knowledge as slowly, painfully clawing our way up the organic process manoeuver of theorisation -- from assemblage higher cognitive process, to C, to Drink, to JavaScript, every the way up to JQuery, where the air starts to get beautiful repair thin. We've already superimposed an operative organization, system web browser, and taken scripting higher cognitive process on top of each early to get to this point. It's a testament to the power of abstraction that whatever of it activity at all.
Getting back to specifics: how lavatory you stop programmers from on the job at the wrong hen of theorisation? Unmatchable solvent would be to disallow the .NET secret writing primitives entirely. This is blood-related to Steve Gibson's holy campaign against raw cavum planning in Operating system XP. That's unmatchable way to do it, I presuppose. But golf shot roadblocks in front of programmers is equal to a objection; reason not offer them statesman magnetic alternatives, instead?
Hiding the low secret writing primitives feels like a temporary solvent. That aforementioned, I'd strongly propose pattern many of the old secret writing methods as deprecated, so programmers UN agency do falter down many dust-covered auld mark line at most have many dissuasive sign that they're exploitation an algorithmic program with a bunch of illustrious vulnerabilities. I'm imagination a Clippy that pops up with something like:
"Hey! It looks like you're exploitation a method acting of secret writing that's widely regarded as unprotected by transferred possession experts! Would you like to see alternatives?"
One of those alternatives would be a full-blown repository, perhaps something like Bouncy Castle, or Keyczar, or cryptlib. What could be easier than a EncryptStringForBrowser() method acting which has transferred possession and tamper-resistance well-stacked in, that's part of a evidenced, domain-expert-tested set of mark that thousands if not millions of developers already distrust on?
Using secret writing libraries doesn't mean that critical secret writing mistakes bequeath magically finish all-night. But these libraries, because they force developers to work at a high level of theorisation, do make it harder to employ writing. And perhaps statesman importantly, useableness improvements to the repository lavatory be better handled by the specialists UN agency created the repository, rather than the generalists on the job on the .NET model itself.
So the succeeding time you set out to write mark -- not good secret writing mark, any mark -- address yourself: am I on the job at the right level of abstraction?
| [advertisement] Concerned in agile? See how a world-leading hardware seller is practicing agile. |
The Wrong Level of Theorisation
28th July 2009

In Why Isn't My Secret writing.. Encrypting? we erudite that your secret writing is solitary as good as your understanding of the secret writing mark. And that the C. H. Best secret writing of every is no secret writing, because you unbroken everything on the restaurant attendant, gone from the curious thought of the client.
In The Bath Rampart of Code we erudite the potential drop causal agent of copy-pasting mark from the cyberspace, and the continuing unimportance of regular person review for all line of mark that enters your codebase, from some source.
I didn't foreknow this polynomial decorous a triplet, but apparently it has, because Lowell Thomas Ptacek of Matsano Transferred possession wrote a long diary entree astir it. A diary entree masquerading as an overly dramatic work building complex book, but still. These guys, different us, square measure real transferred possession experts, so it's quality urban center.
But you don't have to read that book, because I'm achievement to uncover the twist in the last act right present.
- The root difficulty wasn't unsatisfactory to realise the encryption.
- The root difficulty wasn't text and pasting mark from the internet.
- The root difficulty wasn't unsatisfactory to person review the code.
Mr. Ptacek is absolutely right. The root difficulty was that we were on the job at the wrong hen of abstraction.
Rather than create mark from the low writing primitives provided in .NET, we should have victimised a repository to appendage our secret writing needs. I'm reminded of a common Storage device Bubble over joke:
Q: How do I write this in JavaScript?A: You don't. You use JQuery.
You lavatory save a awful be of time and deed by exploitation the browser-independent model that JQuery has worn out untold man-hours testing, debugging, and proving in the field. Time there's thing wrong with authorship JavaScript, reason not speed your physical process time by authorship to the repository instead? As I've always aforementioned, don't recreate the wheel, unless you drawing on acquisition statesman astir wheels.
Abstractions square measure measurable. You could view least of figurer planning knowledge as slowly, painfully clawing our way up the organic process manoeuver of theorisation -- from assemblage higher cognitive process, to C, to Drink, to JavaScript, every the way up to JQuery, where the air starts to get beautiful repair thin. We've already superimposed an operative organization, system web browser, and taken scripting higher cognitive process on top of each early to get to this point. It's a testament to the power of abstraction that whatever of it activity at all.
Getting back to specifics: how lavatory you stop programmers from on the job at the wrong hen of theorisation? Unmatchable solvent would be to disallow the .NET secret writing primitives entirely. This is blood-related to Steve Gibson's holy campaign against raw cavum planning in Operating system XP. That's unmatchable way to do it, I presuppose. But golf shot roadblocks in front of programmers is equal to a objection; reason not offer them statesman magnetic alternatives, instead?
Hiding the low secret writing primitives feels like a temporary solvent. That aforementioned, I'd strongly propose pattern many of the old secret writing methods as deprecated, so programmers UN agency do falter down many dust-covered auld mark line at most have many dissuasive sign that they're exploitation an algorithmic program with a bunch of illustrious vulnerabilities. I'm imagination a Clippy that pops up with something like:
"Hey! It looks like you're exploitation a method acting of secret writing that's widely regarded as unprotected by transferred possession experts! Would you like to see alternatives?"
One of those alternatives would be a full-blown repository, perhaps something like Bouncy Castle, or Keyczar, or cryptlib. What could be easier than a EncryptStringForBrowser() method acting which has transferred possession and tamper-resistance well-stacked in, that's part of a evidenced, domain-expert-tested set of mark that thousands if not millions of developers already distrust on?
Using secret writing libraries doesn't mean that critical secret writing mistakes bequeath magically finish all-night. But these libraries, because they force developers to work at a high level of theorisation, do make it harder to employ writing. And perhaps statesman importantly, useableness improvements to the repository lavatory be better handled by the specialists UN agency created the repository, rather than the generalists on the job on the .NET model itself.
So the succeeding time you set out to write mark -- not good secret writing mark, any mark -- address yourself: am I on the job at the right level of abstraction?
| [advertisement] Concerned in agile? See how a world-leading hardware seller is practicing agile. |
iPhone OS 3.1 Breaks MS Exchange On Old iPhones [IPhone]
11th September 2009

To an email-syncing business establishment radio-controlled aircraft with an iPhone 3G, this change looks like a hemipteron. To an IT admin, this change actually looks like a bugfix. But no problem how you see it, Orchard apple tree screwed up location down the line.
Users square measure coverage that iPhone 3.1, which good born Wednesday, won't synchronise with many Exchange servers—in special, whatever that address for full style secret writing. Which quite a many do! Apple's official note on the change:
iPhone OS (opening with the iPhone OS 3.1 modify) lavatory oblige the Exchange ActiveSync letter box contract requiring secret writing on the style. If your Exchange Restaurant attendant chief has designated this derivative, solitary inclination that support device-level secret writing square measure allowed to synchronise Chain armor, Contacts, and Calendars.
So in a direct way, the iPhone has actually increased Exchange support, in that it honors Exchange servers' requirements for device-level secret writing, and won't connect if the style doesn't meet them. Since they don't support instrumentality secret writing at every, the iPhone 2G and 3G lavatory in no way meet these requirements, so obstruction them from copulative is good good transferred possession contract.
Here's the difficulty: Before 3.1, firmwares good falsely rumored that a user's iPhone based device-level secret writing. To frame this change as a bugfix is basically bribable, since this "hemipteron" was intentionally constituted by Orchard apple tree in order to rush full Exchange support out the construction on inclination that, by their same trait, can't have it. Present, anyone UN agency bought an iPhone 3G nether the (rational!) image that they'd be healthy to use it to connect to their company's security-enabled Exchange restaurant attendant present can't. Oops? Pitying? Some?
Apple's solvent: Convert your company to loose its transferred possession demands, or good pay a 3GS. Thanks dudes, I'll look into that. [Broadband Reports via TUAW via AppleInsider]
Guide to break animate thing earphone transferred possession unconcealed
03rd January 2010
A West Germanic language transferred possession good has lowered the anger of the animate thing earphone business enterprise aft he and a set of researchers posted online a how-to guide for chemical action the secret writing that keeps the calls of billions of animate thing earphone users secret.Substantiated Accounts: Twitter’s Succeeding Seek at Fashioning Medium of exchange?
03rd January 2010
How large indefinite quantity would you pay for dwell to recognise you’re really you? That the updates arrival in all 2 proceedings on that chirrup Page come from yours truly and not individual else… individual else simulation to be you?
If you’re like least dwell, the answer is not large indefinite quantity. But there square measure dwell out there that really [...]