<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>String Formatting on guy@secdev.uk</title>
    <link>https://www.secdev.uk/blog/tags/string-formatting/</link>
    <description>Recent content in String Formatting on guy@secdev.uk</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-gb</language>
    <copyright>Guy Dixon | guy@secdev.uk</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.secdev.uk/blog/tags/string-formatting/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>String Formatting and Security: A Cross-Language Minefield</title>
      <link>https://www.secdev.uk/blog/technology/2026-01-03-string-formatting-and-security/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 03 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.secdev.uk/blog/technology/2026-01-03-string-formatting-and-security/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;String formatting is one of those operations that&amp;rsquo;s everywhere, and it&amp;rsquo;s more dangerous than most developers realise when user input gets involved. Every language provides multiple ways to build strings from dynamic data, and each mechanism carries different security implications. From C&amp;rsquo;s &lt;code&gt;printf&lt;/code&gt; family, where a format string bug can read and write arbitrary memory, to Python&amp;rsquo;s f-strings that can execute attribute lookups, the attack surface is broader than most people think. I wanted to map out the full landscape across languages, and what I found was that each mechanism breaks down in its own unique and sometimes surprising way.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
