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
| ||
|
From: jonathan at nuclearelephant.com (Jonathan A. Zdziarski) Subject: Is the FBI using email Web bugs? > Feature++ = bloat = bugs++. In the interest of fairness, this is shown > on the mutt.org bugs page too. Mutt has many features, and lots of bugs. If you believe security to be lack of bugs, then to you lack of features == security, however this is an incorrect statement IMHO. To me, however, the term security is an active term (not a passive one) meaning it isn't related to the complexity of the software, but the pro-activity of the programmer to implement secure programming; as complexity rises, security doesn't necessarily need to rise with it. Lack of bugs certainly makes it more difficult to exploit some holes, but that doesn't mean it has any security. A secure program makes a differentiation between trusted inputs and untrusted inputs, performs several pro-active sanity checks to insure that data is valid - and it is not about to perform a function it isn't supposed to, and provides necessary warnings and such when it is uncertain. This is a far cry from having a program that is written without any regard for security but doesn't happen to have any known bugs.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists