richardbarosky
Joined 6 years ago
Joined 6 years ago
You've got the detailed technical writeup on one end in the patches themselves, and on the other end you've essentially got the AI and security companies both together (php2shell) and independently with their highly polished microsites and blog posts with attractive infographics and stylized pitch deck looking images.
Every publication on the other side of the detailed technical writeup in the patches themselves wanted to make it into a huge fucking marketing stunt first and foremost, providing absolutely zero added practical benefit or value.
I initially updated the following php.ini setting and verified that it updated via phpinfo(). I understand this to be only a possible mitigation (see below).
session.upload_progress.enabled = Off
file_uploads = Off
According to someone stating they are one of the PHP release managers: "INI settings alone won't protect you. You need to patch PHP."
https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/1xb2utu/comment/phyu5m...I use Apache, and added an htaccess rewrite rule in my base directory to block all requests containing multi-part headers. Rewrite rules can also be added into Apache virtual host blocks. Accepting file uploads are not a critical function of the app in my case. This blocks multi-part form requests before they reach PHP.
RewriteCond %{HTTP:Content-Type} multipart/form-data [NC]
RewriteRule ^ - [F,L]
And verified the non-block vs. block case.
https://freeimage.host/i/nOqumyNI'm continuing to learn about the situation and may take the server offline as I learn more.
The writeup I found here:
https://jackalsyn.com/posts/php-up-2026.html
Content from a couple of my ChatGPT 6 Pro sessions about the issue:
https://chatgpt.com/share/6ad89ea3-b2f0-83ea-9c4c-2ecf5cc24b...
https://chatgpt.com/share/6ad8ad3d-3f6c-83e9-abf0-41da8a0d65...
The vulnerability was rated 9.2 (critical) out of 10 under CVSS v4.0 by PHP developers,[1] while security firm watchTowr rated it a full 10.0.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP2ShellHowever, as far as what's being pursued, it seems more like wantonly trying to ride a hype cycle without strongly questioning the end-to-end value of new software development approaches or vetting their immediate suitability.
Personally, I think it would be more sensible to take a few individuals or a smaller team(s) and do more isolated/skunkworks experimentation and adopt as justified based on what those people report/experience. The smaller group can adjust faster and iterate/advise the larger dev org about the good approaches/techniques/strategies, and avoid more broad damage/chaos for things that aren't that well thought out.
For more conservative AI use cases like adding to code review, writing low stakes PR summaries, or beefing up security checking, a more global, but still not off-the-rails, approach would be the kinds of things that would make more sense to push more broadly.
This reminds me of a talk Sandi Metz did called "All the Little Things" where she covers the Gilded Rose kata. In the talk, she reworks her solution until there's almost nothing left showing the essence of the problem being solved.
The cyclomatic complexity metric is touted at each step as a proxy for goodness of design and removal of complexity. However, a weakness of the measure itself is that it doesn't account for the control flow indirection that happens through OO method dispatch itself.
At the same time, Kevlin Henney's talk called "Gilding the Rose" takes the same kata and arrives at a far more sane solution he works up to and reveals at the end.
Short functions used to be hot. Uncle Bob used to proselytize "The first rule of functions is that they should be short. The second rule of functions is that they should be shorter than that." Now emphasizing the benefits of longer functions is pretty trendy. https://github.com/johnousterhout/aposd-vs-clean-code
This industry is pretty idiotic sometimes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The same way as someone selling an expensive course in the stock market is signaling that they have more to gain by selling the course rather than taking their knowledge and making money in the stock market directly.
https://github.com/anthropics/defending-code-reference-harne...
Interestingly, it states:
"This repo is not maintained and is not accepting contributions.
Want a managed option? Anthropic offers Claude Security, a hosted product that finds and fixes vulnerabilities in your source code across multiple projects. Claude Security scans your repository for vulnerabilities, applies a multi-stage verification pipeline to reduce false positives, and lets you manage findings through their lifecycle: triage, fix validation, and rapid fix generation.
This repository is an open-source reference implementation based on general best practices for finding vulnerabilities using Claude. You can use it to build your own vulnerability finding pipeline, customize the logic, and it can be used with whatever access you have to Claude APIs (including Bedrock, Vertex, or Azure)."