Search: Home Bugtraq Vulnerabilities Mailing Lists Jobs Tools Beta Programs
Too Cool For Secure Code
Jon Lasser, 2003-03-26

Until Unix and Linux programmers get over their macho love for low-level programming languages, the security holes will continue to flow freely.

Comments Mode:
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-26
Anonymous (3 replies)
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
DrNerdware
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-26
Anonymous (4 replies)
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous (1 replies)
Don't Forget Ada! 2003-04-02
StealthBadger
Solving the problem 2003-03-27
Peter Ross
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous (1 replies)
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-04-07
jhon blacken
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-26
Anonymous (26 replies)
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Secure languages? 2003-03-27
Anonymous
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-27
Anonymous
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-27
dbtid (1 replies)
That's the wrong attitude. - haha, time to upgrade 2003-03-30
Anonymous (1 replies)
That's the wrong attitude. - haha, time to upgrade 2003-04-01
Penguinisto
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-27
Anonymous
ok but... 2003-03-27
SeJo
Re: That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-27
George Barbarosie
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-27
Listener
Tools matter 2003-03-27
Jon
You are an idiot (or a troll). 2003-03-27
Anonymous
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Re: That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-27
CondorDes
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-27
Anonymous
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-27
Ron
Re:That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-27
Anonymous
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-28
Anonymous
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-28
DrNerdware
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Obsolete thinking. 2003-03-28
Anonymous
There are plenty of mail clients written in high-level languages like TCL that don't use 200 megs of RAM and 100% CPU. Interpreted languages have a bad name, but that mostly comes from the days when we were all coding in BASIC on 1 MHz 6502s.

The problem with C is it doesn't give you any protection at all. Buffer overflows and stack-smashing bugs are common in even supposedly securely-written C code, but they're unheard of in languages like Perl and TCL. We're not so strapped for CPU cycles anymore that we can't afford bounds checking on arrays, for crying out loud.


[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/150/19006#19006
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-28
Anonymous
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-28
Anonymous
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-28
Anonymous
That's the wrong attitude. 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Type safety is good 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Real issue: don't make the same mistakes. 2003-03-29
Anonymous
I totally agree 2003-04-08
Anonymous
Nonsense 2003-03-26
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-26
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-26
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-26
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-26
Anonymous (1 replies)
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-31
SK
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-26
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-26
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-26
mk
Slow news day? 2003-03-27
TJ Miller jr
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Marion De Liau (1 replies)
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-31
Anonymous
Strong Typing, etc. 2003-03-27
RC
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Right idea, wrong solution 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Fra. 219
This is hogwash... I guess we should all use VB? That's High Level and we know how "bug" free that is. 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
so pilots can't really fly? 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Work at a C shop guys? 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Oh Boy 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Shawn
This is exactly right. 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Johnathan Lasser Isn't a a Programmer 2003-03-27
Someone Who Actually Writes Code (1 replies)
Johnathan Lasser Isn't a a Programmer 2003-04-02
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Das Megabyte (1 replies)
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-04-08
ibanix
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Tirs
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Dave
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Ivan Vecerina
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Crap 2003-03-27
terber
christ, what a whinger 2003-03-27
mark hahn (hahn@mcmaster.ca)
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Syte and Methodology not the Tool 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
I Dont Think So 2003-03-27
Randy LeJeune
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
X-Nc
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Kirk Rafferty (kirk_at_rafferty.org)
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Things should change 2003-03-27
Matthew B
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
I agree entirely 2003-03-27
Iain Collins (iain_collins@mac.com)
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Thats the _right_ attitude 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Sticks-and-Stones programming tools 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Higher level languages also insecure 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Bad code is a result of a poor development process 2003-03-27
c0d3cr33p@hotmail.com
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Synonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
simply sloppy programming 2003-03-27
rishab
Its not macho love its SKILLS! 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Silly 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Boo. 2003-03-27
Anonymous
(sigh) 2003-03-27
grey
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
I agree 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
It's Too Cool To Criticize Programmers 2003-03-27
PipTigger
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Java as a solution 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Many scripting languages don't scale 2003-03-27
PyMan
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
MS security much worse. 2003-03-27
Ron
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
No.. No.. No.. 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too cool for secure code 2003-03-27
Ben
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Partially true 2003-03-27
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Couldn't agree more 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Software responsibilities 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Blame the coder, not the language 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Alternatives? 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Tested Code? 2003-03-28
Werm
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Lee Reynolds
Stupidest piece I have ever read. 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool? No, not really. 2003-03-28
clee
Stop wasting electrons and our time 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code - Wise Words 2003-03-28
DrNerdware
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Angelos Karageorgiou
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Philips
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Way Kewl For Secure Code 2003-03-28
fnaaijkens@ultihouse.com
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
For what it's worth, RPC wasn't 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code? My two cents 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
vijeno <vijen0@yahoo.com>
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
User clients are rarely security risks 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Re: Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-28
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-29
Anonymous
That was a joke ? 2003-03-29
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-29
blacklight
I Agree 2003-03-29
LesPaul
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-29
Not Really Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code - USE VB! 2003-03-30
Anonymous (1 replies)
Too Cool For Secure Code - USE VB! 2003-04-01
Anonymous
goto india; 2003-03-30
mummer the bard
Portability, efficentcy, hot air 2003-03-31
jthomas@poweronemedia.com
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-03-31
G. Bailey Childs
Why say it's just Linux/unix? 2003-04-01
Ally
Too Cool For Secure Code 2003-04-01
Anonymous (1 replies)
Too Cool For Secure Code - uh, yeah no shit 2003-04-01
Anonymous
Too Cool For Secure Code -- Only Unix and Linux? 2003-04-02
winklessd@netscape.com
This is so funny - linux on linux battle 2003-04-02
Anonymous (1 replies)
This is so funny - linux on linux battle 2003-04-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
This is so funny - linux on linux battle 2003-04-03
Anonymous
The article reflets the writers inexperience 2003-04-08
Anonymous







 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2009, SecurityFocus