full-disclosure - Coding securely, was Linux (in)security

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <3F9C949C.3010405@hutley.net>
From: brett at hutley.net (Brett Hutley)
Subject: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security

Paul Schmehl wrote:

*snip*
> You complain that the code would be really slowed down if consistent and 
> complete error checking were done.  I wonder if anyone has ever really 
> tried to write code that way and then tested it to see if it really 
> *did* slow down the process?  Or if this is just another one of those 
> "truisms" in computing that's never really been put to the test?

Yup. I work on large distributed systems for financial risk management 
processing. We have some very tight calculation loops with preallocated 
buffers because we can't afford to do any unnecessary stuff in these 
loops. Because they are buried deep in the calculation engine we don't 
need to worry about validating the input. An unnecessary piece of code 
here makes the difference between the job taking 1 hour to process or 10 
hours. There are some circumstances where tight code is essential. Of 
course in MOST systems the speed of execution is not that critical.

Cheers, Brett
-- 
Brett Hutley [MAppFin,CISSP,SANS GCIH]
mailto:brett@...ley.net
http://hutley.net/brett