[btilly]

What is the full story?

It seems to me that two tricks nail it. First use parametrized queries. And secondly if you have information you need to send/receive from the client that isn't easily parametrized, have a limited list of possible things that can be accepted back, which is checked in code while building the query.

If you're doing those two things, I don't see how much work it is to avoid SQLI. Furthermore if you're using a reasonable ORM, then you should get both of those pretty much for free. (Well you have the overhead of learning the ORM itself.)

[tptacek]

There's almost nothing wrong with your second "trick" (when we write recommendations, we usually suggest people never allow users to directly write syntax, and that they structure their app so that the parameters the user sees couldn't possibly land in SQL; use "1" for "ASC" and "0" for "DESC", etc).

But it's not nearly as powerful a statement to say "use parameterized queries and then do everything else right" as it is to say "just use parameterized queries and you won't have this problem", is it?

[Dylan16807]

How about "only pass user-sourced data in parameters"? So anything that isn't a parameter is coming from the app, possibly as a response to user data, but not actually from user data. This statement seems just as powerful as the original. Anything misleading about it? Somewhere you can't use parameters and can't simply use app-supplied query pieces?

[tptacek]

You see how we're converging on "just use proper input validation", which is the all-time least useful piece of advice in software security?

[Dylan16807]

Because input validation is hard to do. A rule to not pass input EVER (outside of parameters), even in a supposedly validated form, is something different.