full-disclosure - [inbox] Re: RE: 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: <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.