Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: automated vulnerability testing
From: "Bill Royds" <full-disclosure () royds net>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:43:35 -0500
You must be god since you can code perfectly without ever making a mistake. Once you have a substantial application to write, C makes it very hard to ensure that it is secure (C++ is even worse). A vulnerability testing application for C must look at the whole system to check because interface declarations are textual (#include) rather than part of the language (as in Delphi or Eiffel). There is no enforcement of types between caller and callee in functions, no enforcement of string length etc. So all of these must be done by the programmer rather than the compiler which means that your programmer must be perfect to guarantee security. C is best used for low level programming where one needs to be close to the hardware (programming in the small). It is not good for large applications where modularity and flexibility are more important ( programming in the large). Sure, it is possible to write secure Application in C, but the language, by its very power, makes it much harder than using others (like Cyclone, a secure dialect of C). You said:
It is security unfriendly by design.C is designed to allow the programmer a high level of functionality and freedom. If he/she is laisez-faire in his/her coding practices, that is
an
issue with the programmer, not the language.
Good C coding practices can still allow security flaws. The OpenBSD project tries to use as secure coding practise as possible with C. Yet there still are some security problems found in OpenBSD, OpenSSH etc. The C philosophy is to allow the programmer freedom to implement code to optimize machine cycles. But that very freedom means that each programmer can implement code in ways that are not compatible with the code others produce in subtle ways that often lead to security flaws. C is very limited in its constructs. It does not have true arrays (the C array notation is only an alias for pointers). It does not have strong typing (typedef is only a syntax alias for struct). It does not have good memory management (C only has malloc/free which are not inherent parts of language so compiler can't check pointer referencing). It does allow you to get close to the machine. But getting close to the machine is not what one wants when writing a cross platform user application. -----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of Choe.Sung Cont. PACAF CSS/SCHP Sent: November 29, 2003 5:48 AM To: 'full-disclosure () lists netsys com' Subject: [Full-disclosure] automated vulnerability testing Bill Royds wrote:
If you are truly interested in security, you won't use C as the
programming
language.
You must be shitting me.. C does have its inherent flaws but that doesn't mean that there cannot be a secure application written in C. This statement represents FUD at its highest level.
It is security unfriendly by design.
C is designed to allow the programmer a high level of functionality and freedom. If he/she is laize-faire in his/her coding practices, that is an issue with the programmer, not the language. V/r, Sung J. Choe PACAF CSS/SCHP, PACAF NOSC Information Assurance Analyst DSN: 315-449-4317, Comm: 808-449-4317 _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: automated vulnerability testing, (continued)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing Cael Abal (Nov 21)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing David Maynor (Nov 21)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing madsaxon (Nov 21)
- Re: automated vulnerability testing fulldisclosure (Nov 21)
- RE: automated vulnerability testing Bill Royds (Nov 28)
- RE: automated vulnerability testing Todd Burroughs (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)