Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 10:34:49 -0700 From: Tracy Reed <treed@...raviolet.org> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Thoughts on Shellshock and beyond On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 05:11:43PM PDT, David A. Wheeler spake thusly: > It's trivial to implement a language (say Lisp) inside Haskell, > and then hand data to that implementation to be executed. Sure, but at least with Haskell (and the like) you have to make it very explicit that this is what you want to do. A lot of our problems seem to come from the mixing happening by accident. > But mixing code with data is probably an *overused* approach, > given the risks that come with it. Right. Which is why it should be a little more work to do and require that it be made explicit that the mixing is what is intended. > We need to help developers know what is safe, and what is less safe. > Then they can avoid easily-avoided problems, and know when they have > extra work to do. Educating developers will be equally hard as switching to safer languages but at least it is something people will stomache getting started on. -- Tracy Reed, RHCE Digital signature attached for your safety. Copilotco PCI/HIPAA/SOX Compliant Secure Hosting 866-MY-COPILOT x101 http://copilotco.com Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.