Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread Blue Boar
David Crocker wrote: I don't think this analogy between software development and manufacturing holds. There are no manufacturing defects in software construction For software: A design defect is when you correctly implement what you wanted, and you wanted the wrong thing. A manufacturing

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread John Steven
Ah, The age-old Gary vs. jOHN debate. I do believe along the continuum of architecture--design--impl. that I've shown the ability to discern flawed design from source code in source code reviews. Cigital guys reading this thread have an advantage in that they know both the shared and exclusive

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread James Stibbards
Hi Gary, In one of your prior posts you mentioned documentation. I believe that the problem with WMF was that someone had not examined WMF as a postential source of vulnerabilities, since the embedded code was an legacy capability. My belief is that one of the keys to finding flaws lies in the

[SC-L] The role static analysis tools play in uncovering elements of design

2006-02-03 Thread John Steven
Title: The role static analysis tools play in uncovering elements of design Jeff, An unpopular opinion Ive held is that static analysis tools, while very helpful in finding problems, inhibit a reviewers ability to find collect as much information about the structure, flow, and idiom of codes

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread Crispin Cowan
Gary McGraw wrote: To cycle this all back around to the original posting, lets talk about the WMF flaw in particular. Do we believe that the best way for Microsoft to find similar design problems is to do code review? Or should they use a higher level approach? Were they correct in saying

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread Dana Epp
Title: Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws I think I would word that differently. The design defect was when Microsoft decided to allow meta data to call GDI functions. Around 1990 when this was introduced the threat profile was entirely different; the operating system could trust the metadata.

[SC-L] Re: SC-L Digest, Vol 2, Issue 17

2006-02-03 Thread Brian Chess
John, I think this has to do with what you want to achieve when you explore code. A static analysis tool is a fancy sort of pattern matcher. If the kinds of patterns you're interested in aren't that fancy, (does the program use function X()?; what is the class hierarchy?) then a fancy pattern

RE: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread Nick FitzGerald
Gary McGraw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To cycle this all back around to the original posting, lets talk about the WMF flaw in particular. Do we believe that the best way for Microsoft to find similar design problems is to do code review? Or should they use a higher level approach? I'll leave

Re: [SC-L] Bugs and flaws

2006-02-03 Thread Nick FitzGerald
Al Eridani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the design says For each fund that the user owns, do X and my code does X for all the funds but it skips the most recently acquired fund, I see it as a manufacturing error. On the other hand, if a user sells all of her funds and the design does not