Crispin Cowan wrote:
Dynamic type checking (or any kind of run-time fail-stop checking)
enhances security (attacks are halted) but degrades reliability
(processes that might live with a harmlessly inconsistent state may be
halted).
Degrades reliability of a "correct" program? Or only degrades
Blue Boar wrote:
Crispin Cowan wrote:
Dynamic type checking (or any kind of run-time fail-stop checking)
enhances security (attacks are halted) but degrades reliability
(processes that might live with a harmlessly inconsistent state may
be halted).
Degrades reliability of a "correct" program?
i've been following this thread and have an observation i'd like to make that
will probably get me strung up in the closest pine tree.
using a language as an excuse for poor security is simply saying that we have
failed to properly train the programmers who are building the software.
i'm a dinosau
Jim & Mary Ronback wrote:
I am hard put to find an example of a language feature which makes a
system more secure but less safe or vice versa, in any context. Can
anyone else think of one?
Dynamic type checking (or any kind of run-time fail-stop checking)
enhances security (attacks are halted)
At 7:31 AM -0700 4/23/04, Jeremy Epstein wrote:
>Jim & Mary Ronback opined:
>> I am hard put to find an example of a language feature which makes a
>> system more secure but less safe or vice versa, in any context. Can
>> anyone else think of one?
>
>Not 100%, but consider automatic garbage colle
Jim & Mary Ronback opined:
> I am hard put to find an example of a language feature which makes a
> system more secure but less safe or vice versa, in any context. Can
> anyone else think of one?
Not 100%, but consider automatic garbage collection. Tends to make a system
more secure, because it
Greenarrow 1 wrote:
There is a comparison chart of different functions of D vs other languages
at this site:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/comparison.html
This "comparison" appears to be an advocacy piece by the D developers,
and thus may be biased.
The comparison leaves out three conspicuous f
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Jim & Mary Ronback
> Sent: 22 April 2004 19:57
> To: Greenarrow 1
> Cc: Kenneth R. van Wyk; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; James Walden;
> Rod Chapman
> Subject: [SC-L] Anyone l
>> Safety critical sofware has a lot of overlap with the requirements
>> for high security software.
> Can anyone think of any _differences_ between those domain (process
> and code-wise, not regulatory-wise).
Process-wise, probably not. In each case, you need to start by
figuring out what your t
L PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu Apr 22 19:31:52 2004
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [SC-L] Anyone looked at security features of D programming
language compared to Spark?
At 11:56 AM -0700 4/22/04, Jim & Mary Ronback wrote:
Safety critical sofware has a lot of overlap with the req
ljknews wrote:
At 11:56 AM -0700 4/22/04, Jim & Mary Ronback wrote:
Safety critical sofware has a lot of overlap with the requirements for
>>high security software.
Can anyone think of any _differences_ between those domain (process and
code-wise, not regulatory-wise).
I think the primary differen
ljknews wrote:
At 11:56 AM -0700 4/22/04, Jim & Mary Ronback wrote:
Safety critical sofware has a lot of overlap with the requirements for high security software.
Can anyone think of any _differences_ between those domain (process and
code-wise, not regulatory-wise).
Well, I would normally think of
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SC-L] Anyone looked at security features of D programming
language compared to Spark?
At 11:56 AM -0700 4/22/04, Jim & Mary Ronback wrote:
>Safety critical sofware has a lot of overlap with the requirements for high security
>software.
Can anyone think
At 11:56 AM -0700 4/22/04, Jim & Mary Ronback wrote:
>Safety critical sofware has a lot of overlap with the requirements for high security
>software.
Can anyone think of any _differences_ between those domain (process and
code-wise, not regulatory-wise).
>For Spark see http://www.praxis-cs.co.u
alden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kenneth R. van Wyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [SC-L] Anyone looked at security features of D programming
language?
Kenneth R. van Wyk wrote:
Has anyone h
ot;Kenneth R. van Wyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [SC-L] Anyone looked at security features of D programming
language?
> Kenneth R. van Wyk wrote:
> > Has anyone here looked into the security strengths/weaknes
Kenneth R. van Wyk wrote:
Has anyone here looked into the security strengths/weaknesses of D? Care to
discuss or summarize for the rest of us? Does it inherit the problems of C
while trying to improve on C++ et al?
I haven't examined D myself, but I would also be interested if anyone
could rec
Hi all,
I just saw an interesting article about a programming language that's under
development called "D". (See full article at
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6761) The description of the
language is, "D is a (relatively) new addition to the C family of programming
languages, inten
18 matches
Mail list logo
