[SC-L] Coding with errors in mind - a solution?

[Michael S Hines]

a simple structure that provides for errors would go a long way...   If - then - else - on error Do - end - on error Let x = y - on error Let x = function() on error etc...      The problem is writing code without thinking of the possible errors that might arise.   This forces you to think about the consequences of executing a command...   Where 'error' is doing something intelligent when the original command doesn't work...      Just a brainstorm....... any merit to it?   Mike Hines [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Reed (Aesec) Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:17 PM To: sc-l@securecoding.org Subject: [SC-L] e: How can we stop the spreading insecure coding examples at, training classes, etc.? Message: 1 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:48:17 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SC-L] How can we stop the spreading insecure coding examples at training classes, etc.? To: "Wall, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: SC-L@securecoding.org Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Quoting "Wall, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I think that this practice of leaving out the "security details" to just make the demo code short and sweet has got to stop. Or minimally, we have to make the code that people copy-and-paste from have all the proper security checks even if we don't cover them in training. If we're lucky, maybe they won't delete them when the re-use the code. I agree, and would like to extend it: security should be discussed *at the same time* that a topic is. Teaching security in a separate class, like I have been doing, reaches only a fraction of the audience, and reinforces an attitude of security as an afterthought, or security as an option. Comments in the code should explain (or refer to explanations of) why changing or deleting those lines is a bad idea. However, I'm afraid that it would irritate students, and make security the new "grammar and spelling" for which points are deducted from "perfectly valid write-ups" (i.e., "it's my ideas that count, not how well I spell"). The same used to be said about unstructured programming examples (computed gotos, spaghetti code, multiple entry and exit points from functions, etc).  We got past it. We need a similar revolution in thought with regard to security, and some one to take the lead on providing clear, crisp examples of coding style that is more secure by its nature.  I don't have one handy - but that's my wish. Ed

_______________________________________________
Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L)
SC-L@securecoding.org
List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php