> Feature++ = bloat = bugs++. In the interest of fairness, this is shown > on the mutt.org bugs page too. Mutt has many features, and lots of bugs.
If you believe security to be lack of bugs, then to you lack of features == security, however this is an incorrect statement IMHO. To me, however, the term security is an active term (not a passive one) meaning it isn't related to the complexity of the software, but the pro-activity of the programmer to implement secure programming; as complexity rises, security doesn't necessarily need to rise with it. Lack of bugs certainly makes it more difficult to exploit some holes, but that doesn't mean it has any security. A secure program makes a differentiation between trusted inputs and untrusted inputs, performs several pro-active sanity checks to insure that data is valid - and it is not about to perform a function it isn't supposed to, and provides necessary warnings and such when it is uncertain. This is a far cry from having a program that is written without any regard for security but doesn't happen to have any known bugs. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
