Re: Blowfish Sign Extension implementation risk
From: Michael Amling (nospam_at_nospam.com)
Date: 04/29/04
- Next message: Michael Amling: "Re: minimum Hamming distance among random bit vectors"
- Previous message: Joe Peschel: "Re: Blowfish Sign Extension implementation risk"
- In reply to: Thomas Pornin: "Re: Blowfish Sign Extension implementation risk"
- Next in thread: William Wallace: "Re: Blowfish Sign Extension implementation risk"
- Reply: William Wallace: "Re: Blowfish Sign Extension implementation risk"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:44:26 GMT
Thomas Pornin wrote:
>
> Some people work on proofs of program correctness: these are automatic
> tools that analyze source code in some language, and establish formally
> that the source code complies with a formal description such as the
> one described above (or point out bugs). Last I heard of it, it can be
> made to work quite effectively with some languages (mostly Lisp-like or
> SML-like); with more low-level languages like C, there is still some
> work to do.
>
> The main problems with that approach are:
> [...]
> -- the problem of correctness is only moved to the problem of making
> sure that the program used to verify the proof is itself correct(**).
Not to mention the problem of whether the specification that the
program is proven to correctly implement is in fact an accurate
depiction of what the user wants.
--Mike Amling
- Next message: Michael Amling: "Re: minimum Hamming distance among random bit vectors"
- Previous message: Joe Peschel: "Re: Blowfish Sign Extension implementation risk"
- In reply to: Thomas Pornin: "Re: Blowfish Sign Extension implementation risk"
- Next in thread: William Wallace: "Re: Blowfish Sign Extension implementation risk"
- Reply: William Wallace: "Re: Blowfish Sign Extension implementation risk"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|