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
| ||
|
Date: Thu Oct 6 16:33:09 2005 From: michealespinola at gmail.com (Micheal Espinola Jr) Subject: Bigger burger roll needed I do see how it all comes together, and I agree as a whole. I'm certainly not excusing MS of their responsibility to the matter. My comments only referred to legitimate use of the OS, using supporting software and drivers, in which case you should be able to depend on proper coding from every party involved. Running software/drivers that were properly written for the OS should provide a failure free platform, and it does. That was my only point to egregious comments to Windows being BSOD prone. It could be a balancing act at times, but it could be done if done right. Yes, absolutely, any OS should be able to handle bad data without crashing. I think its apparent that MS is no longer ignorant (or perhaps naive) about the issue, and I honestly can't remember the last BSOD I got. It's been years. On 10/6/05, bkfsec <bkfsec@....lonestar.org> wrote: > But, Curmudgeon's right... you can't just say "yeah, the OS can't handle > malformed data, but that's not their problem." > > One of the primary rules of coding is never trust the input. And that > is a very valid point. The same flaws in code that cause exploits also > cause crashes by their very nature. It's not "all over the place", it's > a fact of system design. If they can't avoid mishandling input, then > people's expectations will be low. See how it all comes together?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists