| 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: <200310270511.h9R5B111009187@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:07:18 EST, Bill Royds <full-disclosure@...ds.net> said: > such as OpenSSH has been found to have security problems. If you look at > security advisories, find out how many come from Ada code. C makes it hard > to write secure code. I wasn't aware there was enough of a code base of actual Ada programs out in the wild for there to be statistically valid results. I gave up on any prospects of Ada when the DoD dropped the requirement that the compiler and runtime support libraries pass the test suite for exception handling because otherwise *no* compilers would validate. Given this, and the truly huge and byzantine nature of the *rest* of the language, I'm not convinced that Ada was actually any good for writing *secure* code. Think about how many programs have had bugs because programmers didn't understand how *their particular* C++ compiler (in the current version, as opposed to the version 6 months ago) handled constructors, and consider that Ada was even worse. True, it may have been safe against simple buffer overflows, but a breeding ground for more subtle bugs caused by misunderstanding the semantics of *all* the language features. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20031027/3ab62cbe/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists