I completely agree, though how are we really going to reach this
point? We have been talking about this at least since I got into
development in the early 1980s. We are not anywhere closer, though we
have lots of neat tools that do lots of neat stuff. Unfortunately,
our programs are also a lot more complicated, making the "correct"
proof much more difficult.
Can we really believe it is "just around the corner" to prove this?
--
Brad Andrews
RBA Communications
CISM, CSSLP, SANS/GIAC GSEC, GCFW, GCIH, GPCI
Quoting "Cassidy, Colin (GE Infra, Energy)" <colin.cass...@ge.com>:
Martin Gilje Jaatun wrote:
Karen, Matt & all,
Goertzel, Karen [USA] wrote:
> I'm more devious. I think what needs to happen is that we
need to redefine what we mean by "functionally correct" or
"quality" code.
_______________________________________________
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
SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
_______________________________________________
