quoting myself: Apologies and thanks for describing **even** these details in specifications, appreciated!
as summary: I know this is a must have too :-) On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: >> >> > it would be stupid to code like that but it makes sense since it has >> basically always been like that :) >> >> A big part of of my job is specifying what stupid code does. >> > > Although Allen does so mostly for non-security reasons, I'll take this > moment to make a security point: > > "Normal" non-defensive programming generally seeks to avoid edge cases, > and especially edge cases where platforms are likely to differ. > > Attackers see such edge cases as opportunities. Whereas a correct program > should work on all conforming platforms, an attack is successful even if it > only succeeds on one supported platform. > > Therefore, defensive programs, though they should still stay away from > edge conditions for the functionality they provide, must worry about and > defend themselves against all the possible adversary behaviors that these > edge conditions might enable. > > Thus, a language that supports defensive programming needs this kind of > careful attention to "stupid" edge conditions. > > This is not to argue for or against any specifics of this proposal. > > >> >> Allen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
