David Crocker wrote:
Unfortunately, there are at least two situations in which C++ is a more
suitable
alternative to Java and C#:
- Where performance is critical. Run time of C# code (using the faster .NET
2.0
runtime) can be as much as double the run time of a C++ version of the same
Here's a somewhat interesting link to an eweek article that discusses
Apple's use of encryption to protect some of its OS X binaries:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2050875,00.asp
Of course, encrypting binaries isn't anything new, but it's
interesting (IMHO) to see how it's being used
Hi all,
We all know that there is nothing more powerful for causing software
security change than a flashy exploit demonstration. Once again, this
has come to the fore in the actions of an IU student who took a well
known boarding pass vulnerability and wrote a script to make it real.
Just after
| Here's a somewhat interesting link to an eweek article that discusses
| Apple's use of encryption to protect some of its OS X binaries:
| http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2050875,00.asp
|
| Of course, encrypting binaries isn't anything new, but it's
| interesting (IMHO) to see how it's
Gary McGraw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The main thing I wonder is, what do you think? When you have a hot
demonstration of an exploit, how do you responsibly release it?
This isn't so much about that, in the usual sense. This was, as you say, a
well-known vulnerability, one screamingly
Gary McGraw wrote:
The main thing I wonder is, what do you think? When you have a hot
demonstration of an exploit, how do you responsibly release it? What
role do such demonstrations play in moving software security forward?
To pick one extreme, I believe there are times when intentionally
BTW, an interesting fact has been pointed out by Amit Singh, author
of a book describing Mac OS X internals: The first generation of
x86-based Mac's - or at least some of them - contained a TPM chip
(specifically, the Infineon SKB 9635 TT 1.2. However, Apple
never used the chip - in fact, they
