| 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: <1070145154.62667.9.camel@localhost> From: frank at knobbe.us (Frank Knobbe) Subject: automated vulnerability testing On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 15:10, Michael Gale wrote: > The right being security first and reliability / speed second. I don't know about that. I prefer code with minimal "failure conditions". Failure conditions, or faults, have impact on both, security and reliability. I don't think a program can exist that is reliable, but not secure, or secure, but not reliable. Performance seems to counter security. The trick is to find a good balance between security and performance. There can never be 100% security as long as humans (or machines derived from the work of humans) are involved. Finding that sweet spot is hard since it's not a simple equation. Some even manage to write code which is neither secure nor performs well.... but that's beside the point. People have to learn not to think in absolute terms. There is no black and white in life, only shades of gray.... Cheers, Frank -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20031129/6c55aaf7/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists