On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 at 19:52, Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 at 03:31, Amit via austin-group-l at The Open Group > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 at 02:25, David A. Wheeler via austin-group-l at > > The Open Group <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 2026, at 12:17 PM, Amit <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > In my opinion, denial of service is better than getting hacked. In > > > > DoS, no personal information is leaked. But if someone gets hacked > > > > then his/her personal information can be leaked. > > > > > > No. In some environments, it's much more important to > > > keep the system running *even* if information leaks. > > > In hospitals, for example, leaking medical records is bad, but > > > having people die because the equipment won't run (availability) is much > > > worse. > > > > The denial of service will happen to those people who want to process > > really huge datasets - probably, more than 75% of the RAM size. > > What about memory-mapped files? > > Any artificially imposed limit is going to cause unnecessary > difficulty for *somebody*, and they'll end up having to write their > own version of strncpy (or memcpy, or whatever API you've crippled). > And they're more likely to introduce new bugs by doing that than if > they could just use the standard library the way it was designed to > work, without artificial limits. >
Since the Open group is not open for a new security oriented POSIX standard, so then there is no point in me continuing this discussion. So, I am stopping this discussion here. Amit
