Re: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security

["Bruce Ediger" <eballen1 () qwest net>]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Bill Royds wrote:

> You are saying that a language that requires every programmer to check for
> security problems on every statement of every program is just as secure as
> one that enforces proper security as an inherent part of its syntax?
>     And I suppose that you also believe in the tooth fairy.

Well, no, but I don't believe your theory either.  VMS usually gets
held up as an example of an OS without significant security problems.

Sorry to tell you, but DEC wrote VMS mainly in VAX-11 assembler.
The Alpha-CPU port of VMS involved writing a VAX-11 assember compiler,
and compiling the VAX assembly code to Alpha object code.

VAX-11 assembler, although nifty in a macro sort of way, and orthogonal
to the point of distraction, had exactly none of the features you claim
help secure an OS.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html