Re: [Full-Disclosure] automated vulnerability testing
From: Frank Knobbe (frank_at_knobbe.us)
Date: 11/29/03
- Previous message: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] automated vulnerability testing"
- In reply to: Michael Gale: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] automated vulnerability testing"
- Next in thread: Gadi Evron: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] automated vulnerability testing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:32:35 -0600
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
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
- application/pgp-signature attachment: This is a digitally signed message part
- Previous message: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] automated vulnerability testing"
- In reply to: Michael Gale: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] automated vulnerability testing"
- Next in thread: Gadi Evron: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] automated vulnerability testing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
