blech writes "Google have released an API to their search engine using SOAP. You have to register to obtain a key, which is then limited to 1000 searches a day, and usage must be non-commercial, but this does allow programmatic searching of their database again.
There's already one example search script using SOAP::Lite available on the web. How long until infobots get the ability to Google back?"
Remember that there are security problems with SOAP::Lite (that will hopefully be addressed soon).
Re:Infobots
acme on 2002-04-12T14:13:06
And here it is: WWW::Search::Google that uses the SOAP API (note: you'll need a Google API license key!). I'm waiting on Google's consent before pushing it onto the CPAN.Re:Infobots
sheriff_p on 2002-04-14T13:57:18
<plug>
The infobot plugin is finished and now in CVS (www.sourceforge.net/projects/infobot), as are a number of other new and fun plugins...
</plug>
Re:Security
samtregar on 2002-04-13T21:48:47
Here here. The SOAP::Lite FUD on use.perl is getting old fast.
-sam
Re:Security
pudge on 2002-04-14T14:43:35
Rubbish. There's no FUD. It is a very serious security problem that people need to know about it before they install the module, or if they have already installed it. You don't like it? Tough.Re:Security
samtregar on 2002-04-14T21:03:03
So just having the module installed puts you at risk? That, my friend, is pure FUD. In fact, most usages of the module put you in no appreciable risk at all. The only risky situation requires:
- You setup a public SOAP server outside your internal network.
- You use autodispatch, which is certainly not the most obvious was to use SOAP::Lite.
Neither of these has anything to do with using SOAP::Lite to call methods in Google's SOAP service.
-sam
Re:Security
pudge on 2002-04-14T21:16:31
So just having the module installed puts you at risk?
No one ever said or hinted that. It is very simple: the module has a serious security problem and people who install it should know about it. This is not rocket science. Please stop with your nonsense. Thanks.
Re:Security
pudge on 2002-04-15T13:41:17
I'm sorry for being rude in the two previous posts, it wasn't proper. I stand by the substance, though. I am very grateful to Paul Kulchenko and I like SOAP::Lite a lot, but I will continue to notify people of security problems like this in the future.
I'm one of those fools who always worries about grammar, and as such, sure to lose any friends I have here. No offense intended; not trying to hurt anyone's feelings or anything, but Google is singular
Re:Grammar nits
2shortplanks on 2002-04-12T16:26:42
Nah, bring it on. I don't think blech is in any position to complain about people being pendantic about such things;-) Re:Grammar nits
vsergu on 2002-04-12T16:42:10
Before criticizing someone's grammar, make sure they're using the same dialect you are. Just because something's different from what you're used to doesn't mean it's wrong.Re:Grammar nits
jdavidb on 2002-04-12T17:52:14
I stand corrected.(Shame I didn't learn this while I was in Europe during the last two weeks.
Re:Grammar nits
jdavidb on 2002-04-12T18:14:43
And while nitpicking I'll flame myself for missing a parenthesis.
I also stand surprised, as well as corrected. I thought that was something like an immutable grammar law for many languages, and I figured British English would have been a real stickler for it.
Re:Grammar nits
koschei on 2002-04-14T11:56:42
Mind you,/. isn't British.
