Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:24:10 +0200 From: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Thoughts on Shellshock and beyond * Pavel Labushev: >> it, but maybe they considered it. It seems unlikely that a shell >> rewrite came up with this concept on its own. None of the Bourne-like >> shells we have implement anything like that, after all. > > We ain't living in a parallel universe where "Haskell" is a mainstream > technology. So we don't have e.g. an "army" of people unconstrained > enough intellectually and practically so they could start thinking > about the useful complex properties they actually can prove, what > formal models are more suitable for building the software in that > context, etc. Instead of trying to "write it in C in Haskell", which > looks like what you have in mind. Haskell programmers typically do not have a background in formal semantics and proof automation. Like with any language with a significant following, a fairly large portion of the practitioners follows a "whatever works" approach. For example, there is no guarantee that a programmer in a type-rich language who implements web templating will give types to the templates (which can help to decouple coding an design work), or will implement auto-escaping functionality (which helps to prevent cross-site scripting vulnerabilities). In fact, if the goal is to produce a provably correct templating library, it is likely that both features are left out because they are much more difficult to verify. (Especially auto-escaping requires extensive domain knowledge which most web templating library authors lack.) >> Not using a parser generator, but a manually written recursive descent >> parser might have helped because you could have called the function >> corresponding to the function definition production directly. (However, >> there would still have been parser exposure to the network.) > > What's the conclusion? I don't have any. A decade ago, I wanted to rewrite everything in Ada, but that feeling has passed. >> The Haskell standard library does not even distinguish between a read >> error and an end-of-stream condition. You can't build reliable software >> on top of that. > > Sounds like a weak excuse for not using it. Like it's impossible to > write a decent library or fix the existing one. Besides, the absence > of a decent standard library doesn't prevent anyone from using "Haskell" > as a meta-language right now, and that's how most people use it for > systems programming and similar stuff. Certainly there are Haskell libraries which do not have this problem. However, the related language features could have long fallen into obscurity, but this is not what happened. There are quite a number of Haskell programmers who like these features, much like there are defenders of arcane shell features. This affects how the Haskell code out there is being written. I don't think Haskell is a magic bullet. I do think type-rich languages (and languages with memory safety) have a lot to offer, but writing secure software in them is still hard.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ