The adolescent minds that engage in exploits wouldn't know COBOL if a
printout fell out a window and onto their heads. I'm sure you can write COBOL
programs that crash, but it must be hard to make them take control of the
operating system. COBOL programs are heavy into unit record equipment
Cobol is highly structured and very difficult to just whip together a program.
Your DATA section had to be specified EXACTLY as your design specifies. Any
program which input data over the stated limit would give an exception. On the
older mainframes your program would terminate. Do not have
Hi Mark,
: The adolescent minds that engage in exploits wouldn't know COBOL if a
: printout fell out a window and onto their heads. I'm sure you can write
: COBOL programs that crash, but it must be hard to make them take control
: of the operating system. COBOL programs are heavy into unit
At 12:13 AM -0400 11/2/07, Mark Rockman wrote:
The adolescent minds that engage in exploits wouldn't know COBOL if a
printout fell out a window and onto their heads. I'm sure you can write
COBOL programs that crash, but it must be hard to make them take control
of the operating system.
Of
At 4:11 PM +0100 11/2/07, Johan Peeters wrote:
Let me offer a little variant on the previous theme though to
illustrate, hopefully more convincingly, why I find COBOL worrisome:
...
01 txtpic x(2).
move 'hi' to txt
call
I have been looking at an IBM system. If I do something like this
...
01 txt PIC X(120)
string '**'
into txt
end-string
display txt
I get to see ** on sysout followed by what appears
ljknews wrote:
At 9:16 PM +0100 11/1/07, Johan Peeters wrote:
I think this could do a great service to the community.
Recently I was hired by a major financial institution as a lead
developer. They said they needed me for some Java applications, but it
turns out that the majority of code is
At 2:16 PM +0100 11/2/07, Johan Peeters wrote:
I have been looking at an IBM system. If I do something like this
...
01 txt PIC X(120)
string '**'
into txt
end-string
display
On 02/11/2007, Glenn and Mary Everhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe there are some old COBOL static analyzers around,
One of them is the Anno Domini system, which was developed to help the
Y2K (do anybody remember what was this hype?) experts to do their
work.
Searching through
http://www.csl.sri.com/neumann/illustrative.html
gives these COBOL-related RISKS items. The initial
character descriptors are defined there. In the citations,
* R relates to RISKS (archives at risks.org)
* S relates to SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes (archives at
My limited exposure to Cobol makes me think it is as unlikely to have
a buffer overflow as PL/I or Ada.
Usually, Ada programmers switch off bounds checking before shipping
code. I don't know why Ada has such a reputation for robustness.
___
Secure
At 11:45 PM +0100 11/2/07, Florian Weimer wrote:
My limited exposure to Cobol makes me think it is as unlikely to have
a buffer overflow as PL/I or Ada.
Usually, Ada programmers switch off bounds checking before shipping
code. I don't know why Ada has such a reputation for robustness.
Can
12 matches
Mail list logo
