What you've proposed are exceptions. They do help (some) in separating
the normal logic from error handling, but:
(1) they often leave the job "half done" which has its own risks.
writing exception safe code can be more of a nightmare than error
checking.
(2) in many languages, you can't retry or resume the faulting code.
Exceptions are really far less useful in this case.
(3) you usually end up with some "generic" clean up code, which generally
hides more errors than it solves.
Tim Hollebeek
Research Scientist
Teknowledge, Corp.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael S Hines
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:07 AM
> To: sc-l@securecoding.org
> Subject: [SC-L] Coding with errors in mind - a solution?
>
> 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]>
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: SC-L@securecoding.org
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Quoting "Wall, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <mailto:[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
