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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3F9C95C1.5030907@hutley.net> From: brett at hutley.net (Brett Hutley) Subject: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Chris Eagle wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com >>[mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com]On Behalf Of Paul Schmehl >>... >> >>But it shouldn't be the job of the writer of a subroutine to verify the >>inputs. The writer of a subroutine defines what the appropriate inputs to >>that routine are, and it's up to the *user* of that subroutine to use it >>properly. The entire concept behind OOP is that you cannot know what's in >>the "black box" you're using. That makes it incumbent on you as the > > *user* > >>of a subroutine to use the correct inputs and to *verify* those inputs > > when > >>necessary. >> > > > That is the most backward thing I have ever heard. So you are saying all I > need to do as a programmer is tell you not to pass a negative number/null > pointer/un-initialized value... to my function and I am off the hook. All I > can say is that I am glad utdallas doesn't have you teaching programming. > The fact that you are unaware what lies inside the black box in no way > relieves the responsibility of the designer of the black box to make sure > that it behaves predictably under all input cases. So you're saying I don't need to worry if a file pointer is NULL before passing it through to fprintf()? So I don't need to worry if an argument to strcpy() is NULL? Or are you trying to say that the standard library is badly written? -- Brett Hutley [MAppFin,CISSP,SANS GCIH] mailto:brett@...ley.net http://hutley.net/brett
Powered by blists - more mailing lists