[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALx_OUB=JxYUBE+oPVk+6eTqqv=K9gVNuKj8c6ktav=ToAxPfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 17:31:02 -0700
From: Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf@...edump.cx>
To: noloader@...il.com
Cc: "fulldisclosure@...lists.org" <fulldisclosure@...lists.org>,
bugtraq <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Re: [FD] several issues in SQLite (+ catching up on several other
bugs)
> Clang and its analyzers found a number of issues a couple of years
> ago. As far as I know, the results were dismissed. See "Clang 3.3 and
> Scan-Build results",
Well, I can kinda sympathize. Somebody took one of my OSS projects
(p0f) and ran it through a static analyzer a while ago (the analyzer
shall remain nameless, but was one of the major ones). The results
were just pages and pages of nonsensical findings, interspersed with
non-specific style recommendations.
An experience like that can quickly divide developers into two camps:
the "not sure, but let me spend a week to address everything, just in
case" one, and the "show me faulting test cases or get lost" bunch.
I've heard it summed up this way: when a particular check is stable
and reliable enough to be actually useful to most developers, it stops
being called "static analysis" and becomes a "standard compiler
warning" =)
/mz
_______________________________________________
Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list
https://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/fulldisclosure
Web Archives & RSS: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists