Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:02:26 -0500
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:58:11 +0100, Sebastian Herbst <pz () psychozapp de> said:
The statement was: "There is no programming language that prevents you from writing insecure code". And that is true, as long as "insecure code" means vulnerability to DoS. IMHO that would be "incorrect" not "insecure" code, since an attacker is not able to get sensible data, or additional rights("shutting down" the service is public right because of incorrect code).
Anybody who's busy losing business because their webserver is being DoS'ed will tell you it *is* a security problem....
Btw (almost) every programming language gives the versatile programmer the possibility to write proof-able correct and secure programs.
Haven't spent much time doing formal verification have you? "Provably correct" is a major pain in the butt for anything larger than a trivial program. http://hissa.nist.gov/~black/Papers/icci98.pdf Paper from a major conference - it takes the *7 pages* to do a formal proof of a merge sort. You're welcome to apply their technique (or any other formal methods, they have some pointers in their paper) to the 300,000 lines of code in your payroll system. Oh, and most formal methods are *really* weak at proving that critical-region locking is properly implemented - so race conditions are a real "open research" area.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security, (continued)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 26)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Brett Hutley (Oct 26)
- RE: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Chris Eagle (Oct 26)
- RE: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Steve Wray (Oct 27)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Gregory A. Gilliss (Oct 27)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 28)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Gregory Steuck (Oct 28)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 29)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Ben Laurie (Oct 29)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Sebastian Herbst (Oct 29)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 29)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Sebastian Herbst (Oct 29)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Bill Royds (Oct 29)
- RE: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Steve Wray (Oct 29)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Brett Hutley (Oct 29)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security VeNoMouS (Oct 29)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 29)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Ben Laurie (Oct 30)
- Re: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Bill Royds (Oct 29)
- Re: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security Sebastian Niehaus (Oct 24)