[Winsaucerer]

Presumably they just did whatever the standard provided mechanisms for their SQL driver were (such as parameterised queries). User inputs text in a comment box, and you insert it into database using such a mechanism and it's safe.

And if you're using, for example, Go's templating library, then it automatically escapes everything in HTML templates unless you explicitly override this default behaviour.

[paulryanrogers]

Well if it was only 100 lines of plain JS then how would one guard against reflection attacks? I.e. submitting HTML (like script tags) then getting that to render when others view the tainted data.

[Winsaucerer]

Because on this way of building sites, the user submitted data is escaped before it reaches the browser. E.g.: https://go.dev/play/p/MmNSxU5QfAb (hit run to see the output).

The JS wouldn't need to do any escaping, because it's not trusted to handle any unescaped data. It's operating on the already-escaped html template.

[skeeter2020]

They certainly weren't using Go, or as stated, any framework. Also no mention of any type of web server; not sure what magical code was creating dynamic HTML from the database. Where was the business logic? Stored Procedures? No mention of more dynamic functions... No integrations... Sure sounds like a desktop browser-only app while the majority of the world today wants some mobile functions from almost every system.

There is a lot information, which is understandable but also conveniently supports a very unflattering narrative while simultaneously promoting the OP's awesomeness.

[Winsaucerer]

I think you're reading them far too strictly. I don't think they literally meant they were using nothing beyond JUST the SQL Server and then somehow getting HTML out of that, with 100 lines of JS on top. Unless I misread, I don't see anything that implies they weren't using something like PHP or ASP, for example.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

To me this is the hilarious part.

Q: "how do they use the workarounds needed to secure the more complex approaches?"

A: "those security concerns don't exist in the approach, no workaround needed. That's part of the simplicity".

It just represents a fundamental misunderstanding, but it's not their fault, they've never seen anything else. Like someone using a JWT instead of a session cookie.

[eurasiantiger]

>Like someone using a JWT instead of a session cookie

Those aren’t mutually exclusive, you know.