full-disclosure - THREATCON --> Re: scriptkids on this list

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: silvio at big.net.au (silvio@....net.au)
Subject: THREATCON --> Re: scriptkids on this list

Aplogies Mik :)

--

Does anyone think something like hints for compiler should be more
standardized in specifications or os?

I mean.. it wold be nice to have something like this in gcc standard
includes and every other compiler (as optional implementation).

#define NORETURN

#if we are in gcc and its implemented
#undef  NORETURN
#define NORETURN __attribute__((noreturn))
#endif

and then go through things like all the usage functions in your system
and change them to use it.

if this were done across the free opensource os's, i'm sure alot of
people could get involved into submitting patches, since it would be
only trivial changes.

for me.. i think noreturn is a good compiler hint.  it makes for smaller
code, and helps program analysis.  almost every binary on your system
does an exit in usage(), so these are good places to add this straight off
the bat, with the entire system thus benefitting.

I personally dont like the idea of adding attributes directly, since they
are quite gcc specific. or even using the builtin's to be honest,
but if they are macro's that can be changed easily, i say even the
builtin branch prediction and almost everything else should become
standardized as macro's, which are purely optional in implementation (but
would be with gcc!).

--
Silvio

On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 07:59:41PM +0200, Mikhail Iakovlev wrote:
> Hello silvio,
> 
> Friday, September 27, 2002, 7:48:45 PM, you wrote:
> 
> sbna> THREATCON ADVISORY 1.21 --> "b4ck t0 th3 futur3"
> 
> sbna> Be w4rned. this advisory requires 1.21 jiggyflopz of electricity to
> sbna> get you back to 1996.
> 
> Silvio, please read my mail again. It doesn't concern you, and to be
> honest I am surprised that you replied :)
> 
> I have no questions about your abilities at all. Never had any.
> 
> Mik-
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html