The Daily WTF

"The great words of inspirationalAuthor.firstName inspirationalAuthor.lastName move me every time," wrote Geoff O.

C++’s template system is powerful and robust enough that template metaprogramming is Turing complete. Given that kind of power, it’s no surprise that pretty much every other object-oriented language eschews templates for code generation.Java, for example, uses generics- essentially templates without the metaprogramming. What we still keep is compile-time type-safety, and all the benefits of generic programming, but without the complexity of compile-time code generation.Thierry L inherited a Java application, and the original developer seems to miss that degree of complexity.

We know stereotypes are poor placeholders for reality. Still, if we name a few nations, there are certain traits and themes that come to mind. Americans are fat, loud, gregarious, and love making pointless smalltalk. The English are reserved, love tea, and have perfected the art of queuing. The French are snobbish, the Japanese have weaponized politeness, the Finns won’t stand within ten meters of another human being at the bus stop, and so on. They can range from harmless to downright offensive and demeaning.Laurent is Canadian, working for an insurance company. Their software is Russian- in that it comes from a Russian vendor, with a support contract that gives them access to a Russian dev team to make changes. While reviewing commits, Laurent found one simply labeled: “Fix some Sonars issue”.The change?

It’s Thanksgiving here in the US, so we’re taking a long weekend. In lieu of a more traditional “from the archives” post, I’m going to give thanks.You know what I’m thankful for? I’m thankful that data packets on the Internet are routed and handled the same way, regardless of which network originated them, nor which network is their destination, nor what they may contain. You could say that networks are… neutral about packets.A few years ago, the FCC enshrined this common sense into its regulatory framework. We were all pretty happy about it, and were optimistic that it was done. Unfortunately, it’s never over, and the new management at the FCC wants to reverse that, and plans to vote about it in a few weeks.Remember: prior to making Network Neutrality the regulated standard, network operators largely (but not completely) followed the rule anyway. Network Neutrality was the default, and then the bean-counters recognized an unexploited revenue stream (why should Netflix get to send data to our customers without paying us for the privilege?). The Internet worked under Network Neutrality, and the FCC only needed to enforce it by rule because network operators wanted to change the playing field.In any case, if you’re thankful for an Internet that works, between gorging yourself in typical American fashion and arguing with your racist uncle, take a few minutes to do something about network neutrality.I’d be ever so thankful if you did.[Advertisement] Manage IT infrastructure as code across all environments with Puppet. Puppet Enterprise now offers more control and insight, with role-based access control, activity logging and all-new Puppet Apps. Start your free trial today!

There are some submissions that we get, and we simply sit on, because there’s nothing much to say about them. They’re awful code, but there’s no major comments to be added. It’s clear and simple in its awfulness.For example, you have some code that needs to display details about colleges around the US. Each College has a name, a full name, a short name, a state and city where it exists, and full names for those states and cities. You are likely reaching for an object to store that information, but why do that, when you can employ what I call the “Arrject Pattern”. Y’know, when instead of using objects, you use multiple arrays and store related data at the same index? Stuff like what Kevin found in his codebase:

Once upon a time, I discovered a bug in some JavaScript. I went off to investigate the source, only to find… the JS wasn’t coming from a file. It was being generated by a server-side method. Through string concatenation. It was a simple generation, something along the lines of:

"This was in an email from Nest. I'm sure in some other font this shows a heartwarming image of fluffy bunnies frolicking in an energy saving Utopia, but instead, we get this," wrote Matthew W.

When faced with an API or programming paradigm that requires repetitive, boilerplate code, a developer is left with two options. They may refine or adapt the API/paradigm, using the idioms of their language to make something tedious and verbose into something elegant and clear.Or they just automate it. If you have a mile of boilerplate that’s mostly the same across the application, just generate that. It’s like copy/paste, but, y’know… automatic.Which is why Derf Skren found this pile in their codebase:

The more you learn about something, the less confident you often become in making statements about it, because you understand the complexities of the matter. If, for example, I asked you to help me refine my definition of how dates and times work, you know that many assumptions are wrong. Or if we tried to define what makes a string a person’s name, we’ll run into similar problems. This is even true for a value we’ve all probably seen implemented as a boolean value: gender. The more you learn about these subjects, the more complex and nuanced your understanding of them becomes. More and more, your answers start with, “It’s complicated…”.Eugene was going through some code at a customer’s site, and he found that their business logic depended heavily on a flag ISCOMAPNY (sic), but there was no ISCOMPANY field anywhere in the database. There was, however, a SEX field on the customer records, implemented as an integer.Digging through the queries, Eugene found a new approach to defining a company:

The life of a contractor can be precarious. Contracts end- sometimes suddenly, and you rarely know what the organization you’re working for is actually like until it’s too late.Ian S, for example, was contracting for a platform-as-a-service (PAAS) company, adding new features to their existing infrastructure automation system. It was the kind of place that had two copies of the same code-base, maintained side-by-side, just so that a single customer could use a script they’d written eight years prior.That wasn’t too much of a challenge. The real challenge was that when things went wrong, there was almost no logging, and what little logging they got contained helpful, “[10:14:17] An error occurred” messages.It wasn’t hard to see why that happened:

"TRWTF here is I can't believe they shorted me on my change!" writes Diane B.

Circa 2003, or so, Annie’s employer contracted a lowest-bidder to produce a relatively massive .NET Web Forms project. The code was built, signed off, and chucked into production without any of the in-house developers being involved, despite being the team that would support it in the long term. There was no documentation, no knowledge transfer, and no code review.Over the next few years, there was a rush of feature requests as gaps in functionality were found. A series of in-house developers passed through, doing their best to patch them in, but the original project’s code quality didn’t exactly make it maintainable, and since they were operating in a rush, they weren’t exactly improving the code quality.Fast forward to 2017, and the code is finally unmaintainable enough that someone put together the budget for a ground-up rewrite in .NET MVC, and once again shopped it around to a different lowest-bidder, who would do the conversion. This time, at least, Annie gets to review the code before they accept it. It isn’t going well.

The Gang-of-Four design patterns have an entire category of creational patterns, to handle the complexities of creating objects. And yes, it can get complicated, especially when we think in terms of the single-responsibility principle. Often, creating an instance of an class is itself so complex that we need a new class to do it.Thus, we have the Factory pattern. And the Abstract Factory Pattern. And the Abstract Factory Factory Abstract Provider Bean pattern, if you’re using Spring. The purpose of these patterns is to add indirection between the client, calling code, and the creation of the objects- different concrete implementations can be instantiated, without the client code needing to worry about what actual type it received. Polymorphism wins the day. Code is more loosely coupled, because the client code never needs to name the concrete type it uses.Unless you want to do it wrong, in which case Jen M found this particular solution:

"Starting from one star, I'm almost at that gold five-star rating," writes Sam K.

We return to Virginia N’s refactoring efforts (previously: here, and here).This code is elegant in its stupidity, combining two anti-patterns in one glorious, “No, don’t do that, whyyyyyyyyyy!”. To wit, the for-switch, and the “build SQL statements through string concatenation”:

Becky is not a programmer, but a physicist. She works in academia, alongside other scientists. Modern science generally requires some sort of heavy computation, which means scientists write code. It’s often not very good code, but that’s just the nature of the beast. The code exists to provide an analysis, not to be deployed as an app to the masses.Most of the time. A few civil engineers were working on a brand new Android app for traffic analysis, with plans to distribute it. Unfortunately, they had some problems, and wanted more experienced eyes. Becky set aside the Fortran77 she was working on to trace through their Java code, and found this:

This is a follow-up to With the Router, In the Conference Room, revealing the… STUNNING CONCLUSION!How It Really EndedDarren took the case up to his boss, and then to their boss, up the management chain. No one was particularly happy with Cathy’s tone, and there was a great deal of tut-tutting and finger-wagging about professional conduct.But she was right. It was Mr. Green who failed to follow instructions, it was Mr. Green who cost the company thousands, along with the customer relationship problems caused by Cathy’s sudden emergency trip back to the home office.In what can only be considered a twist ending by the standards of this site, it was Mr. Green who was escorted out of the building by security.The killer was Cathy, in the issue tracking system, with the snarky bug report. [Advertisement] Universal Package Manager – store all your Maven, NuGet, Chocolatey, npm, Bower, TFS, TeamCity, Jenkins packages in one central location. Learn more today!

One of the most important aspects of software QA is establishing a good working relationship with developers. If you want to get them to take your bug reports seriously, you have to approach them with the right attitude. If your bugs imply that their work is shoddy, they are likely to fight back on anything you submit. If you continuously submit trivial “bugs”, they will probably be returned right away with a “not an issue” or “works as designed” status. If you treat any bug like it’s a critical showstopper, they will think you’re crying wolf and not immediately jump on issues that actually are critical.Then there’s people like Mr. Green, a former coworker of submitter Darren A., that give QA a bad name. The Mr. Greens of the QA world are so incompetent that their stupidity can cause project delays, rack up thousands of dollars in support costs, and cause a crapstorm between managers. Mr. Green once ran afoul of Darren’s subordinate Cathy, lead developer on the project Mr. Green was testing.Cathy was en route to the United States from London for a customer visit when her phone exploded with voicemail notifications immediately upon disabling airplane mode. There were messages from Darren, Mr. Green, and anyone else remotely involved with the project. It seemed there was a crippling issue with the latest build that was preventing any further testing during an already tight timeline.Instead of trying to determine the cause, Mr. Green just told everyone “Cathy must have checked something in without telling us.” The situation was dire enough that Cathy, lacking the ability to remotely debug anything, had to immediately return to London. Mr. Green submitted a critical bug report and waited for her to cross the Atlantic.What happened next is perfectly preserved in the following actual bug report from this incident. Some developers are known for their rude and/or snarky responses to bug reports that offend them. What Cathy did here takes that above and beyond to a legendary level.

You may remember Virginia N from An Extinction Event, where she struggles to refactor a legacy project with some… unusual design principles. ReSharper still continues to choke to death on their codebase, but her management has let her know, this won’t be a problem going forward.“You see,” her boss explained, “we’re going to move the logic into stored procedures. That way, we can more easily re-use the logic between the Windows Forms client and the Web app.”“Oh, there’s going to be a web app, now?” Virginia asked.“Yes! They’re going to use best practices, like unit testing, so that they don’t end up with the same kind of mess we have,” her boss said.Virginia was halfway to filing a request for a transfer when she heard more about the web project. Then she heard about their plan. They weren’t going to simply build a web-client for their backend, but instead were going to build an inner platform. The page logic would be a simple template, and all of the rules, styling, data and display logic would be stored as data in the database. “It’s gonna be really flexible!”Virginia decided to stick with the fetid field she knew, instead of the “green field” which was going to be a fetid swamp in a matter of weeks.In Virginia’s swamp, she has many, many 40,000 line classes. That much code means the code has no real cohesion, so it leads to Virginia finding variables named thus:

"Sorry, but 4.2 billion Microsoft points sounds like 'all tricks' to me," writes Ergin S.

Our Anonymous submitter's first job was helping to support a distributed system running in a low-energy embedded platform. Interesting on its face, the platform was actually a bloated, outdated monstrosity made worse by the decision to use C++ in conjunction with a homemade (read: unsafe) binary data format.The platform had one mysterious, catastrophic flaw in particular: once a cluster was up and running for a few weeks, it would sometimes fail with a series of random segfaults, with several nodes crashing at once. Serial port debugging showed that many of these failures were proceeded by an ominous log message, a single line with the number 10001 and nothing else.After pondering the mystery for some time, someone thought to search for the number 10000 within the code base. Thus they found their culprit within the very core of their application: the code that read each record stored in their homemade binary files and copied it to memory.

Sometime back, our friend Fred told us about his experiences with homegrown PK/FK relationships. Today, he regales us with a tale of trying to get users to use their new-and-improved sso mechanism, even if they don't want to.His company currently runs a legacy reporting portal service that has an old-school sso which is used by several third party systems. This mechanism stores user names and passwords as clear text in the DB. It also passes them in clear text in a hidden HTML form. The third party code would create the hidden form with the user name and password in clear text and JavaScript-submit it to the login page - without HTTPS. OK, it was the way things were set up way back then.Nowadays, his employer knows better and has created a new and improved system with slightly more sophisticated security. They encourage their end users to make the switch and use the shiny new platform. Unfortunately, the third party systems still have hard-coded embedded links to the old system, and although switching to use the new system would improve security, the users are in no rush to make changes to their software.When you have lemons, make lemonade.Fred was unwilling to succumb to the laissez-faire attitude of lazy customers, and so wrote a URL-rewrite rule for the IIS server that was running their old VB6-era system. It redirected posts to login.asp to /hijack/login.aspx. The new page contains logic to check if the user is configured on the new platform. This magic was accomplished by using the 307 Temporary Redirect, which maintains the POSTed payload; something which is not done by a standard 302 (perhaps this is a Dark Secretâ„¢ of IIS - who can say?) If the user was found in the new application, an access token was fetched from IdentityServer3 and the incoming user was redirected to the new platform. Otherwise, /hijack/login.aspx output the same old fool-proof hidden HTML form with clear text user name and password and JavaScript-submitted it - without SSL - to the renamed login2.asp page of the old system.Upon pondering his creation, Fred winced at the plethora of Biblical-Level WTF in this set up, but in some curious way the solution is kind of cool and he thought the world should know about it.[Advertisement] Release!is a light card game about software and the people who make it. Play with 2-5 people, or up to 10 with two copies - only $9.95 shipped!

After some “miscommunications about coding standards”, Nicolas’s company decided that they should have one of their internal developers do code reviews on anything that came from their external, third-party developers. Nicolas drew the short straw on the most recent project.The specific problem in play is that they had config-data, structured as nested dictionaries. You know the kind of data-structure- something like:

“I logged into the admin app.”Julie’s boss had the username and password for the admin app, so that wasn’t too surprising.“With my regular username and password,” her boss added.That was a bit more of a problem. The app in question was an internal, home-grown CMS. The admin portion of it was secured by a single username/password combo, controlled by a config file. It wasn’t the most secure thing on Earth, but it should at least be secure enough that you needed to supply the correct values.Julie checked the code, and found that wasn’t the case:

"Swedish...Russian...English....same difference!" wrote Fred.

A great many breakfast cereals promise some sort of health benefit. This brand is good for your heart, that brand has 11 essential vitamins and minerals. This one’s got bran! Just because there’s a promise of health benefits doesn’t mean they actually exist- most of these cereals are lightly fluffed sugar held together with a smidge of starch.Object-oriented languages promise a lot of code-health benefits, and used properly, they can certainly deliver. In this somewhat tortured metaphor, the Lucky Charms marshmallow of OO features is Inheritance. It’s tasty, it’s easy to explain, but it’s not really good for your code. A little bit, here-and-there, from time-to-time is great. But some folks buy the three pound bag and that’s just not good for anybody.Daniel took over some code left behind by a retiring co-worker. The code was seeded through with abstract classes- though, because this was Python, “abstract” was more of a convention than a statement of fact. This predecessor took abstraction to its “logical” conclusion, and when testing abstract classes, they wrote abstract tests:

The first rule of building your own password storage mechanisms is don’t. Like most other highly-specialized wheels, you aren’t going to do as good a job as someone who specializes in it. It’s bad enough when you write your own date mangling code, but for security-critical features, like passwords or encryption, you’re begging for trouble.Joni spotted some trouble: many of the users in the database had the same password hash. This, of course, should never happen- the password should be combined with a user-specific salt as part of the hashing, so that even if two users had the same password, they’d have different hashes.Joni investigated, and found the code used:

"After trying to close my steam support ticket, I got this," writes Joe, "Now, I'm not entirely sure."

Virginia N was trying to refactor some code, and that meant understanding where the value m_PSOC_SIG was used, and why. So, she did some searching, and found this line, which doesn’t contain our value:

One of the selling points of a language like Java is that it comes with a rich standard library of useful classes. This allows developers to completely ignore those useful features, and instead reinvent the wheel badly. Once this novel square wheel has come off the assembly line, it becomes the defacto standard for the organization.Take, for example, Caiwan’s office. They have a… special date-handling library.

"Yeah, I'm kinda sorry that I have to use Visual Studio too," wrote Kevin D.

Our sponsor, Hired, passed us off a report they just published: “The State of Contract Work”. I said to myself, “Wait a second, I’m a contractor!” Well, technically, I’m more of a consultant or sometimes a trainer- one of those evil highly paid consultants who swing in, tell developers how to do their jobs, and leave behind nothing more than the smell of brimstone and invoices.The bad thing about this line of work, at least from the perspective of a TDWTF article, is that if I encounter a real WTF, it’s because someone wants me to fix it. A WTF that is getting fixed isn’t really a WTF anymore. That doesn’t mean I don’t encounter some real head-scratchers from time to time.For example, I had a client that wanted to figure out best practices around using the Cassandra database. For the unfamiliar, Cassandra is a trendy “big-data” tool, a massively distributed database with no single point of failure and limited guarantees about how consistent the data is across replicas. It’s good for blisteringly fast writes, good for reliability, and absolutely terrible for any sort of ad-hoc query and data analysis.So, I talked with them a bit about their Cassandra needs, roll into the office, and that’s when I start getting the real picture: a pointy-haired boss heard that Cassandra was cool, that FaceBook and Netflix used it a lot, and thus… they were going to use it. For everything. All of their applications, from their legacy mainframe apps, to their one-off SQL server DBs for intranet apps, to their massive supply-chain and retail business were going to run on Cassandra. They started by adopting it for the massive supply-chain and retail portion of their business, and thus were actually quite successful- it was the right tool, for the right job.Thus armed with a wrecking ball and a single success with it, every problem started to look like a building that needed to be knocked down. This lead to a lot of conversations like this:Client: So, we need to run ad-hoc reports out of Cassandra. How do we do that?

An anti-pattern that shows up from time to time here is the old “our IDE’s build output is mapped to a network drive on the web server”, but “Drummer” shows us a novel new variation on that theme.It all started when a co-worker asked them, “how do I change the compiler version?” The code was built using Ant, so “Drummer” opened the build file and searched through it for a javac element- the Ant command which runs the Java compiler.They didn’t find anything, but after a more manual search, they found this:

"So is this the email equivalent of one man's trash is another man's treasure?" writes Allan.

We generally don’t do news roundups when yet another major company gets hacked and leaks personally compromising data about the public. We know that “big company hacked” isn’t news, it’s a Tuesday. So the Equifax hack didn’t seem like something worth spending any time to write an article about.But then new things kept coming out. It got worse. And worse. And worse. It’s like if a dumpster caught on fire, but then the fire itself also caught on fire.If you have been living under a rock, Equifax, a company that spies on the financial behavior of Americans and sells that intelligence to banks, credit card companies, and anyone else who’s paying, was hacked, and the culprits have everything they need to steal the identities of 143 million people.That’s bad, but everything else about it is worse. First, the executives kept the breach secret for months, and then sold stock just before the news went public. That is a move so utterly brazen that they might as well be a drunk guy with no shirt shouting, “Come at me bro! Come at me!” They’re daring the Securities and Exchange Commission to do something about it, and are confident that they won’t be punished.Speaking of punishment, the CEO retired, and he’ll be crying about this over the $90M he’s collecting this year. The CIO and CSO went first, of course. They probably won’t be getting huge compensation packages, but I’m sure they’ll land cushy gigs somewhere.Said CSO, by the way, had no real qualifications to be a Chief Security Officer. Her background is in music composition.Now, I want to be really clear here: I don’t think her college degree is actually relevant. What you did in college isn’t nearly as important as your work experience, which is the real problem- she doesn’t really have that, either. She’s spent her entire career in “executive” roles, and while she was a CSO before going to Equifax, that was at First Data. Funny thing about First Data: up until 2013 (about when she left), it was in a death spiral that was fixed after some serious house-cleaning and restructuring- like clearing out dead-weight in their C-level.Don't worry about the poor shareholders, though. Remember Wells Fargo, the bank that fraudulently signed up lots of people for accounts? They list Equifax as an investment opportunity that's ready to "outperform".That’s the Peter Principle and corporate douchebaggerry in action, and it certainly starts getting me angry, but this site isn’t about class struggle- it’s about IT. And it’s on the IT side where the real WTFs come into play.Equifax spies on you and sells the results. The US government put a mild restriction on this behavior: they can spy on you, but you have the right to demand that they stop selling the results. This is a “credit freeze”, and every credit reporting agency- every business like Equifax- has to do this. They get to charge you money for the privilege, but they have to do it.To “secure” this transaction, when you freeze your credit, the credit reporting companies give you a “password” which you can use in the future to unfreeze it (because if you want a new credit card, you have to let Equifax share your data again). Some agencies give you a random string. Some let you choose your own password. Equifax used the timestamp on your request.The hack itself was due to an unpatched Struts installation. The flaw itself is a pretty fascinating one, where a maliciously crafted XML file gets deserialized into a ProcessBuilder object. The flaw was discovered in March, and a patch was available shortly thereafter. Apache rightfully called it “Critical”, and encouraged all Struts users to apply the fix.Even if they didn’t apply the fix, Apache provided workarounds- some of which were as simple as, “Turn off the REST plugin if you’re not using it,” or “if you ARE using it, turn off the XML part”. It’s certainly not the easiest fix, especially if you’re on a much older version of Struts, but you could even patch just the REST plugin, cutting down on the total work.Now, if you’re paying attention, you might be saying to yourself, “Hey, Remy, didn’t you say that they were breached (initially) in March? The month the bug was discovered? Isn’t it kinda reasonable that they wouldn’t have rolled out the fix in time?” Yes, that would be reasonable: if a flaw exposed in March was exploited within a few days or even weeks of the flaw being discovered, I could understand that. But remember, the breach that actually got announced was in July- they were breached in March, and they still didn’t apply the patch. This honestly makes it worse.Even then, I’d argue that we’re giving them too much of the benefit of the doubt. I’m going to posit that they simply don’t care. Not only did they not apply the patch, they likely had no intention of applying the patch, because they assumed they’d get away with it. Remember: you are the product, not the customer. If they accidentally cut the sheep while shearing, it doesn’t matter: they’ve still got the wool.As an example of “they clearly don’t care”, let’s turn our attention to their Argentinian Branch, where their employee database was protected by the password admin/admin. Yes, with that super-secure password, you could log in from anywhere in the world and see the users usernames, employee IDs, and personal details. Of course, their passwords were obscured as “******”… in the rendered DOM. A simple “View Source” would reveal the plaintext of their passwords, in true “hunter2” fashion.Don’t worry, it gets dumber. Along with the breach announcement, Equifax took to social media to direct users to a site where, upon entering their SSN, it would tell them whether or not they were compromised. That was the promise, but the reality was that it was little better than flipping a coin. Worse, the site was a thinly veiled ad for their "identity protection" service, and the agreement contained an arbitration clause which kept you from suing them.That is, at least if you went to the right site. Setting aside the wisdom of encouraging users to put confidential information into random websites, for weeks Equifax’s social media team was directing people to the wrong site! In fact, it was directing them to a site which warns about the dangers of putting confidential information into random websites.And all of that, all of that, isn’t the biggest WTF. The biggest WTF is the Social Security Number, which was never meant to be used as a private identifier, but as it’s the closest thing to unique data about every American, it substitutes for a national identification system even when it’s clearly ill-suited to the task.I’ll leave you with the CGP Grey video on the subject:[Advertisement] Release!is a light card game about software and the people who make it. Play with 2-5 people, or up to 10 with two copies - only $9.95 shipped!

“Throw typed exceptions,” is generically good advice in a strongly typed language, like Java. It shouldn’t be followed thoughtlessly, but it’s a good rule of thumb. Some people may need a little more on the point, though.Alexander L sends us this code:

Chris M works for a “solutions provider”. Mostly, this means taking an off-the-shelf product from Microsoft or Oracle or SAP and customizing it to fit a client’s specific needs. Since many of these clients have in-house developers, the handover usually involves training those developers up on the care and maintenance of the system. Then, a year or two later, the client comes back, complaining about the system. “It’s broken,” or “performance is terrible,” or “we need a new feature”. Chris then goes back out to their office, and starts taking a look at what has happened to the code in his absence.It’s things like this: