Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns
From: BRG (brg_at_nowhere.org)
Date: 12/13/04
- Next message: Guy Macon: "Re: PRODUCT: /dev/[u]random"
- Previous message: Karl Malbrain: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: Karl Malbrain: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Next in thread: Karl Malbrain: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Reply: Karl Malbrain: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:49:12 +0000
Karl Malbrain wrote:
[snip]
>
> does influence the security and/or safety of the resulting design. But
> from what Doug has said it would be reasonable to conclude that he does
> not.
>
> In my view you "create" the "language" you need with C as part of the
> process.
Nevertheless you accept that the language used does influence the safety
and/or security of the resulting design. Which was the point of my
original question to Doug.
>>>>The fact that this is not the most important issue involved does not
>>>>mean that we should ignore it.
>>>
>>>There is nothing wrong with using C to address these issues from.
>>
>>This thread suggests that this is a matter of opinion.
> Not materially -- C is far and away the language of choice.
I interpret the thread differently in this respect.
Brian Gladman
- Next message: Guy Macon: "Re: PRODUCT: /dev/[u]random"
- Previous message: Karl Malbrain: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: Karl Malbrain: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Next in thread: Karl Malbrain: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Reply: Karl Malbrain: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|