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: <CB1F49F2B508604292985807CF68F5F505953803@CSEXCHANGE.cs.state.ny.us> From: JMC13 at mail3.cs.state.ny.us (Clairmont, Jan) Subject: PFW and Program Correctness I agree combinatorial is probably a better factor of growth of possible security errors. Maybe an algorithm like Port Numbers Open factorial times the number of applications on those ports factorial times number of code lines ! = number of possible bugs-vulnerabilities. Apps! * Ports! * Code Lines! = Possible Security Vulnerabilities or some combinatorial proof a! * p! * c ! = s. Call it the the Clairmont-Everhart Security Index of Vulnerability. The CSIV number, Nice point. Factor in code lines too 8->, oh well so much for my dreams of being a mathematician. Anyone done this? I think there can ever be enough testing, and I think if someone is dedicated enough an exploit can be found. I just think a system becomes so hardened that the effort to exploit it or break it becomes too onerous to do. Where as 1 billion monkeys pushing keys, someone is going to stumble onto something, a key sequence timing error or other weird combination of events that finds another bug or security hole. Jan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists