full-disclosure - automated vulnerability testing

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: <D3A5435B-22AA-11D8-8C2E-000A95703418@improbable.org>
From: chris at improbable.org (Chris Adams)
Subject: automated vulnerability testing 

On Nov 29, 2003, at 2:47, Choe.Sung Cont. PACAF CSS/SCHP wrote:
> Bill Royds wrote:
>> If you are truly interested in security, you won't use C as the
>> programming language.
> You must be shitting me..  C does have its inherent flaws but that 
> doesn't
> mean that there cannot be a secure application written in C.  This 
> statement
> represents FUD at its highest level.

Name a single non-trivial application written in C which has not had at 
least one of the classic C security problems.

That's why we need different languages: even if you're one of the 
extraordinarily small number of programmers who can write C without 
bugs, there's abundant evidence that the average C programmer cannot be 
trusted to do so.

The other problem is productivity - C programmers have to write 
significantly more code to produce equivalent functionality which both 
increases the opportunity for errors and decreases the time available 
to find and fix those errors, identify design oversights, etc.

Chris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2369 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20031129/a30beb83/smime.bin