Re: [misc-sec] Re: Ten least secure programs
From: Jon Zobrist (jzobrist_at_contentwatch.com)
Date: 07/02/03
- Previous message: Nero, Nick: "RE: Ten least secure programs"
- In reply to: Richard Bennett: "Re: Ten least secure programs"
- Next in thread: Chris Berry: "Re: [misc-sec] Re: Ten least secure programs"
- Maybe reply: Chris Berry: "Re: [misc-sec] Re: Ten least secure programs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: Richard Bennett <r.v.bennett@sms.ed.ac.uk> Date: 02 Jul 2003 10:01:52 -0600
Along the same lines, if PHP were available for inclusing (being a
programming language) couldn't we just cut to the root of the problem
and list C?
-Jon
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 18:31, Richard Bennett wrote:
> I wouldn't include PHP as a program. Even though it's interpreted it's
> essentially the person who writes it who causes the insecurities, and it is
> very possible to write secure code. Main cause of insecure PHP apps are
> unsanitised variables which can be passed to the script through the GET
> request.
> Also - wireless networking is a little generalising ;)
>
> -- Richard
-- Jon Zobrist <jzobrist@contentwatch.com>
- application/pgp-signature attachment: This is a digitally signed message part
- Previous message: Nero, Nick: "RE: Ten least secure programs"
- In reply to: Richard Bennett: "Re: Ten least secure programs"
- Next in thread: Chris Berry: "Re: [misc-sec] Re: Ten least secure programs"
- Maybe reply: Chris Berry: "Re: [misc-sec] Re: Ten least secure programs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
Loading