Yes, but it would help if the allocator cleared returned memory if I recall correctly.
On May 14, 2014 6:40:59 PM CEST, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote: >Hi Jakob, > >> Veering off topic here ... >> ... >> > The heartbleed bug wouldn't have had such a devastating effect if >they >> > wouldn't have implemented their own memory management. >> ... >> - test on other memory allocators. Just to ensure conformance. >> ... >> I have no problem with the strategy to for instance use a custom >> allocator with an unsecure default allocator, but defaulting to the >> system allocator on good platforms like OpenBSD. > >Why I enjoyed your rant very much, I must mention that according to >what >I heard about the heartbleed bug, it is not the fault of the memory >allocator. > >The bug happened because the _sizes_ of incoming and outgoing data were >not handled correctly: > >1. Incoming packet says it is 64k, but in fact is only one byte. >2. The single byte is written to the buffer (here the receiver _must_ > know the size independently of what the packet tells). >3. The reply sends all 64k from the buffer, using the wrong value from > the packet instead of its known count of written bytes. > >For this scenario, it would not help if the buffer were allocated by >another memory manager, or even be static. > >♪♫ Alex >-- >UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe -- Skickat från min Android-telefon med K-9 E-post. Ursäkta min fåordighet.
