The sort of bugs discussed in the article are not due to badly designed protocols, but rather shoddily implemented algorithms. The author's thesis is that many of these bugs arise because the tools of choice are, in fact, very weak.

If you code in C/C++ then

(a) you immerse yourself in a swamp of quite peripheral and hard-to-get-right bookkeeping detail,

(b) have to build a problem specific representation from the ground up with pretty much nothing in the way of abstraction tools (please don't suggest templates and classes...), and

(c) are working in a language that is more than happy to both *not* tell you when a program may do something stupid (e.g. buffer overflow or illegal cast) *and* leaves your program semantics undefined in such a case.

Good grief.

There are dozens of languages out there that are efficient, economical and high level. Check out OCaml, Mercury, Haskell, Eiffel and so forth. Yes, these languages are industrial strength. Some of them even have visual studio integration if that's your bag.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/150/18832#18832