Re: alert: the 111111 bug

[Ron DuFresne <dufresne () winternet com>]

Of course, this is not a bug, but bad admin/dbadmin practise, for which
there are no patches available.

thanks,

Ron DuFresne

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, lsi wrote:

> platforms affected: all
> distribution of threat: wide
> severity of threat: potentially serious
> leadtime: 6.3 years :)
>
> I noticed one of my customers using the "special" date of 11/11/11 in
> their database.
>
> I've since realised this practice might be quite widespread, and
> indeed warrants an alert than on or around the 11th of November 2011,
> some crazy things might happen, as folks' "special" dates collide
> with the real date of 11/11/11.
>
> For this customer 11/11/11 in the date field means, don't process
> this record, which will obviously cause problems with legitimate
> transactions on that date.
>
> I suspect using a new field to flag a state, instead of "special"
> data, would have been more appropriate.
>
> Apologies if this is old news for you.
>
> Stu
>
> ---
> Stuart Udall
> stuart at () cyberdelix dot net - http://www.cyberdelix.net/
>
> ---
>  * Origin: lsi: revolution through evolution (192:168/0.2)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

-- 
"Sometimes you get the blues because your baby leaves you. Sometimes you get'em
'cause she comes back." --B.B. King
        ***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***

OK, so you're a Ph.D.  Just don't touch anything.


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/