| 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: <200310281946.h9SJki6P004551@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:44:55 +1300, Steve Wray <steve.wray@...adise.net.nz> said: > Is it beyond all possibility that there exist languages in which > the very reverse is true? ie Languages in which one would have to > reimplement data types and so forth in order to be able to write > insecure code? > > Can there exist such a language?? I reckon so. No. All programming languages that are Turing-complete (basically, anything that has a conditional loop) are prone to the Turing Halting Problem. In other words, you can't prevent DoS-via-infinite-loop based on input. -------------- 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/20031028/3a63b3b0/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists