Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns
From: Douglas A. Gwyn (DAGwyn_at_null.net)
Date: 12/14/04
- Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: A new type of attack - Anti Brute Force Attack"
- In reply to: Xcott Craver: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Next in thread: Xcott Craver: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:25:05 GMT
Xcott Craver wrote:
> people who are developing technical solutions, like safer languages
> (there's even a "type-safe" version of assembler, BTW) these people
> who are actually doing something are accused of blaming the PL.
I was referring to the posters in this newsgroup who were
*in fact* blaming the PL. So far as we have seen here, they
aren't doing anything about the problem, other than urging
solutions that don't work.
I will repeat one more time: No "safe" PL can possibly
compensate for programmers not knowing what they are doing.
- Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: A new type of attack - Anti Brute Force Attack"
- In reply to: Xcott Craver: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Next in thread: Xcott Craver: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
