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: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0310262153300.24429-100000@stratigery.local> From: eballen1 at qwest.net (Bruce Ediger) Subject: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Bill Royds wrote: > You are saying that a language that requires every programmer to check for > security problems on every statement of every program is just as secure as > one that enforces proper security as an inherent part of its syntax? > And I suppose that you also believe in the tooth fairy. Well, no, but I don't believe your theory either. VMS usually gets held up as an example of an OS without significant security problems. Sorry to tell you, but DEC wrote VMS mainly in VAX-11 assembler. The Alpha-CPU port of VMS involved writing a VAX-11 assember compiler, and compiling the VAX assembly code to Alpha object code. VAX-11 assembler, although nifty in a macro sort of way, and orthogonal to the point of distraction, had exactly none of the features you claim help secure an OS.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists