Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: automated vulnerability testing
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:20:36 -0500
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 05:55:52 PST, Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org> said:
So saying C is not secure is rather.. silly.
I'm willing to assert that Unlambda is impossible to write an exploitable program: http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore/programs/unlambda/ :) (Incidentally, if you're a language theory geek, there's a lot of really good stuff there - devising something worse than Intercal takes a LOT of theory background. :)
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- RE: automated vulnerability testing, (continued)
- RE: automated vulnerability testing Bill Royds (Nov 28)
- RE: automated vulnerability testing Todd Burroughs (Nov 29)
- RE: automated vulnerability testing Bill Royds (Nov 28)
- automated vulnerability testing Choe.Sung Cont. PACAF CSS/SCHP (Nov 29)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing Todd Burroughs (Nov 29)
- RE: automated vulnerability testing Bill Royds (Nov 29)
- RE: automated vulnerability testing Peter Moody (Nov 29)
- RE: automated vulnerability testing Bill Royds (Nov 29)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing Michael Gale (Nov 29)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing Frank Knobbe (Nov 29)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing Gadi Evron (Nov 29)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 29)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing Jonathan A. Zdziarski (Nov 30)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing Nick FitzGerald (Nov 30)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing Jonathan A. Zdziarski (Nov 30)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 29)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing Devdas Bhagat (Nov 29)