Re: Public disclosure of discovered vulnerabilities

From: Bryan Olson (fakeaddress_at_nowhere.org)
Date: 05/29/05

  • Next message: Bryan Olson: "Re: 16-bit ECC on prime fields" 
    Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 09:50:09 GMT

    Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
    > Bryan Olson wrote:
    >
    >> Negative character codes are consistent with the C standard,
    >> and common systems,
    >
    > No. The value '0xC0' (EBCDIC code for the character '0',
    > as I recall) is the *positive* decimal value 192 on *all*
    > conforming C implementations.

    So quote the standard and show me wrong.

    >> character codes may also be to large to fit in
    >> an unsigned char; that's why C has wide characters and
    >> towupper().
    >
    > wchar_t has nothing to do with this issue.

    You had claimed:

         Olson has mischaracterized the issue, as usual. The toupper
         function has an int argument, not char, and it is perfectly
         safe to feed it any character code (or EOF).

    The existence of character codes that are not safe to feed to
    toupper() has this to do with the issue: it shows you were
    wrong. 

    -- 
--Bryan
  • Next message: Bryan Olson: "Re: 16-bit ECC on prime fields"

    Relevant Pages
    • Quantcast