Re: [Full-Disclosure] automated vulnerability testing

Valdis.Kletnieks_at_vt.edu
Date: 11/30/03

  • Next message: Valdis.Kletnieks_at_vt.edu: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] automated vulnerability testing"
    To: Bill Royds <full-disclosure@royds.net>
    Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:01:14 -0500
    
    
    

    On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:11:02 EST, Bill Royds <full-disclosure@royds.net> said:
    > Only a good programmer can write safe C.
    > Most programmers are not good programmers.
    > Therefore most C code is not safe and should not be trusted.

    Flon's Law: There is not now, and never will be, a language in which it is the
    least bit difficult to write bad programs.

    Let's think this through. You don't want them using C because they can't
    program their way out of a paper bag - they can't even get simple concepts
    like "Check the length of a string before using it" down. But you want them
    to use languages that still permit more *subtle* errors?

    How many postings do we see about bad C code on this list? Many of which
    are so esoteric that we're still arguing months later whether it's actually
    exploitable? And how many postings do we see about PHP code with XSS issues?

    And I'll point out that Liu Die Yu dropped us 7 very nice bugs in IE which
    all appeared to be of the "logic error" type that would have *still*
    happened, no matter what the language, as the failure was in the algorithm
    encoded rather than the implementation. Let's look at one of his
    descriptions:

    "When CONTENTTYPE in HTTP response is invalid and file extension is "HTM", the
    downloaded HTM file will be opened in cache directory, in INTERNET security
    zone."

    It's painfully obvious what went wrong. And no choice of programming language
    would have protected against the "think-o" that caused this bug.

    Yes, the current state of programming is abysmal. But the *real* problem here
    is that we're letting programmers who can't even handle simple things be in
    charge of very complicated projects - and that should give you some very
    not-warm-and-not-fuzzy feelings....

    
    

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html



  • Next message: Valdis.Kletnieks_at_vt.edu: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] automated vulnerability testing"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: CollabRx seeks brilliant engineers for an excellent e-science adventure
      ... belief that lisp programmers are smarter/better. ... Java or PHP programmers. ... a type of language that attracts a personality that meets my perceptions ...
      (comp.lang.lisp)
    • Re: Question concerning object-oriented programming
      ... programming language, not his. ... there has usually been a toString. ... I know it's "unrealistic" to expect actual programmers to do this, ... tell me what a dog is. ...
      (comp.programming)
    • Re: Language X, not Forth ?
      ... As you become more familiar with a language, it's readability is a function of how much care the programmer took to make it more readable. ... The use of non-readable graphics characters doesn't help FORTH to ... All programmers I know use one sort or another to indent or highlight control flow. ... Therefore, I just don't do this kind of crazy things like juggling around with many stack elements. ...
      (comp.lang.forth)
    • Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
      ... with enforcing that "shouldn't" in the language itself? ... In Python, direct access to pointers is a MUST NOT. ... where you are allowed to mess with the implementation. ... human assembly language programmers? ...
      (comp.lang.python)
    • Re: FORTH levels
      ... Most working on a collaborative project do not choose the programming language they are using: it is thrust upon them by the needs of the collaboration. ... When Iverson and Hui came up with J-- in part to remove APL's special character set and make it more "user friendly" not much of a community formed around it. ... And people who are by not by any reasonable stretch of the term "programmers" seem to take to Perl. ... But RPN does not require a visible stack, any more than any language requires a visible stack to rebuild its semantic trees from its flat expression. ...
      (comp.lang.forth)