|
BugTraq
new linux malware Feb 18 2006 10:40PM Gadi Evron (ge linuxbox org) (2 replies) Re: new linux malware Feb 20 2006 04:57PM Christine Kronberg (Christine_Kronberg genua de) (1 replies) PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Feb 20 2006 08:22PM Gadi Evron (ge linuxbox org) (2 replies) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Dec 30 2006 10:00PM Kevin Waterson (kevin oceania net) (1 replies) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Jan 01 2007 05:53PM Bill Nash (billn billn net) (1 replies) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Jan 01 2007 09:00PM Tino Wildenhain (tino wildenhain de) (1 replies) RE: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Jan 01 2007 09:31PM Jim Harrison (Jim isatools org) (1 replies) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Jan 01 2007 10:37PM Dana Hudes (dhudes hudes org) (1 replies) RE: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Jan 02 2007 12:02AM Jim Harrison (Jim isatools org) (2 replies) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? Jan 02 2007 12:01PM Duncan Simpson (dps simpson demon co uk) (1 replies) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Jan 02 2007 10:58AM Darren Reed (avalon caligula anu edu au) (2 replies) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Jan 02 2007 03:16PM Dana Hudes (dhudes hudes org) (1 replies) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Jan 02 2007 06:48PM Lawrence Paul MacIntyre (macintyrelp ornl gov) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Feb 22 2006 10:48AM Kevin Waterson (kevin oceania net) (2 replies) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Feb 24 2006 09:13PM Matthew Schiros (schiros gmail com) (1 replies) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Feb 27 2006 03:26PM L. Adrian Griffis (agriffis dstsystems com) (1 replies) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Feb 27 2006 03:50PM Matthew Schiros (schiros gmail com) (1 replies) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Feb 27 2006 04:21PM L. Adrian Griffis (agriffis dstsystems com) (1 replies) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Feb 27 2006 05:55PM Matthew Schiros (schiros gmail com) Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware] Feb 24 2006 09:07PM Jamie Riden (jamie riden gmail com) Re: new linux malware Feb 20 2006 04:24PM Marco Monicelli (marco monicelli marcegaglia com) (1 replies) |
|
Privacy Statement |
Let me make my position clear; the goals of secure coding and secure
languages are both grand and well worth the time spent.
There are two primary factors which make this an impossible task:
1. "secure" is moving, contextual target. That which is deemed "secure"
by today's standards will be "just ok" or "watta joke" by future
evaluators. What is good enough for Joe's Garage won't even make it in
the door of Fred's Bank (3 anti-social points for each reference),
although some could argue that Joe's security requirements should equal
Fred's, since they both pin their business on it.
2. Until the human factor is removed from both, mistakes and simple
ignorance will always render them both "less than secure" in any
context. This is the core of my argument.
Again; I agree with and fully support the effort. What I'm trying to
point out is the literal impossibility of actually achieving "genuine
security" in either our code or the languages it's written in.
-----Original Message-----
From: Darren Reed [mailto:avalon (at) caligula.anu.edu (dot) au [email concealed]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 2:58 AM
To: Jim Harrison
Cc: Dana Hudes; bugtraq (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]
Subject: Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux
malware]
In some mail from Jim Harrison, sie said:
>
> ..and similar statements can be made for Basic (pickyourflavor) as
well.
> This argument proves my point that there is no such thing as a truly
> "secure" language; it's entirely dependent on the dev skills.
I disagree. But then the above could be taken to be just flame-bait.
In functional programming languages (think 4GLs like prolog), rather
than functional programming languages (2 and 3GL - C/Pascal/perl/etc),
the ability of a programmer to do something that exposes a security
problem is greatly diminished (if we exclude "shell escapes", etc.)
Where do 9 out of 10 security problems with applications arise from?
Dealing poorly with externally supplied input.
This is the crux of nearly *all* PHP security bugs.
Maybe our problem is that PHP, perl, etc, are all built on top of C and
in such a manner that the origin and trustworthiness of data is lost and
can no longer be delt with in an appropriate fashion.
So maybe there isn't a "secure" functional language yet but I can't see
why we can't develop one.
Darren
All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
[ reply ]