Again, I ran into the “C NUL Problem”, that is the way C strings are terminated. Unfortunately, the creators of C have represented strings as variable arrays of char without an explicitely-stated size. Instead of a size property, a C string is terminated by an US-ASCII NUL character (”). This works well enough in most cases, but has one serious drawback: the NUL character is a reserved character that cannot be part of any C string. So, for example strlen(“AB”) equals one and not three as one would usually expect.
CERT has a good presentation of some of the more important problems associated with the standard C string handling functions. I do not intend to reproduce this here or elaborate on any further details except that we get into big trouble if NUL characters are used e.g. in logging data sets. We had this problem in the IETF syslog WG, where we permited NUL to be part of the syslog message text, but permitted a receiver to escape it. This is far from being an ideal solution, but we considered it good enough, especially as it permits to keep compatible with existing toolset libraries.
Now, in CEE, we face the same challenge: the problem is if the in-memory representation of event fields should permit NUL characters. The correct technical answer to this question is “yes, of course”, but unfortunately it has a serious drawback that can affect adoption: if NULs are permited, none of the string handling functions of the C runtime library can be used. This is, as said above, because the C runtime library is not able to handle NULs inside “standard” C strings. A potential solution would be to escape NULs when they enter the system. However, that would require an additional reserved character, to do the escaping. So in any case, we’ll end up with a string that is different from what the “usual” runtime library routines expect.
Of course, this problem is not new, and many solutions already have been proved. The obvious solution is to replace the standard C string handling functions with octet-counting functions that do not require any reserved characters.
A short, non- weighted list of string replacement string libraries is:
Note that some of them try to mimic standard C strings as part of their API. I consider this highly dangerous, because it provides a false sense of security. While the library now can handle strings with included NUL characters (like “AB”), all parts of the string after the first NUL will be discarded if passed to a “regular” C runtime library string function (like printf!). So IMO this is a mis-feature. A replacement library must explicitely try to avoid compatibility to the C runtime library in order to safe the user from subtle issues, many of them resulting in security problems (think: information hiding).
Unfortunately, I could not identify any globally-accepted string replacement library that is in widespread use.. Despite its deficits, C programmers’ tend to use the plain old string functions present in the standard C runtime library.
So we are back to the original issue:
If CEE supports NUL characters inside strings, the C standard string library can not be used, and there are also problems with a potentially large number of other toolsets. This can lead to low acceptance rate.
But if CEE forbids NUL characters, data must be carefully asserted when it enters the system. Most importantly, a string value like “AB” must NOT be accepted when it is put in via an API. Experience tells that implementors sometimes simply overlook such restrictions. So this mode opens up a number of very subtle bug (security) issues.
I am very undicided which route is best. Obviously, a sound technical solution is what we want. However, the best technical solution is irrelevant if nobody actually uses it. In that light, the second best solution might be better. Comments, anyone?