Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-11-06 Thread mikeiscool
On 11/5/06, David Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mikeiscool wrote: > > >> > Don't go there, sister. Come up with some reasonable tests before making a > statement like that. "Assembly code can be as much as a million times faster > then the run time of a C++ version of the same algorithm." Bi

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-11-05 Thread mikeiscool
On 10/28/06, David Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Crispin Cowan wrote: > > >> > For me, the enemy in the room is C++. It gives you the safety of C with the > performance of SmallTalk. There is no excuse at all to be writing anything in > C++ yet vastly too many applications are written in C++

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-11-05 Thread David Crocker
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 05 November 2006 02:19 To: David Crocker Cc: Secure Coding Subject: Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet] On 10/28/06, David Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Crispin Cowan wrote: > > >> &

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-11-04 Thread David Crocker
PROTECTED] Sent: 03 November 2006 04:46 To: David Crocker Cc: 'Secure Coding' Subject: Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet] David Crocker wrote: > Unfortunately, there are at least two situations in which C++ is a &g

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-11-03 Thread Crispin Cowan
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 sa

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-29 Thread David Crocker
Crispin Cowan wrote: >> For me, the enemy in the room is C++. It gives you the safety of C with the performance of SmallTalk. There is no excuse at all to be writing anything in C++ yet vastly too many applications are written in C++ anyway. Instead of trying to coax developers to switch from C++

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-27 Thread Crispin Cowan
Gergely Buday wrote: > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > >> Is there participation on this list from the (hopefully larger number of) >> CMU instructors who are teaching people to use safer languages in the first >> place ? >> > May anybody not from CMU enter the discussion about safer languages? ;-

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-20 Thread Gergely Buday
Larry Kilgallen wrote: > Is there participation on this list from the (hopefully larger number of) > CMU instructors who are teaching people to use safer languages in the first > place ? May anybody not from CMU enter the discussion about safer languages? ;-) I'm in favor of SML, as it has a num

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-17 Thread ljknews
At 12:11 PM -0400 10/13/06, James Walden wrote: > you really have to use C because it's the only thing that will do, That seems extremely improbable. -- Larry Kilgallen ___ Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org List information, subsc

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-15 Thread Craig E. Ward
At 9:02 PM +1000 10/13/06, mikeiscool wrote: >On 10/13/06, Craig E. Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>At 10:03 AM -0400 10/12/06, ljknews wrote: >>>At 9:20 AM -0400 10/12/06, Robert C. Seacord wrote: >>> I'm also teaching a course at CMU in the spring on Secure Coding in C and C++. >>

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-15 Thread James Walden
On 10/12/06, Craig E. Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think saying "use safer languages" is a good way to say it.It would help conditions significantly if greater care were taken tomatch the choice of programming language to the problem to be solved or application to be created. If a langua

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-13 Thread mikeiscool
On 10/13/06, Craig E. Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:03 AM -0400 10/12/06, ljknews wrote: > >At 9:20 AM -0400 10/12/06, Robert C. Seacord wrote: > > > >> I'm also teaching a course at CMU in the spring on Secure Coding in C > >> and C++. > > > >Is there participation on this list from th

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-13 Thread Craig E. Ward
At 10:03 AM -0400 10/12/06, ljknews wrote: >At 9:20 AM -0400 10/12/06, Robert C. Seacord wrote: > >> I'm also teaching a course at CMU in the spring on Secure Coding in C >> and C++. > >Is there participation on this list from the (hopefully larger number of) >CMU instructors who are teaching peo

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-12 Thread ljknews
At 9:20 AM -0400 10/12/06, Robert C. Seacord wrote: > I'm also teaching a course at CMU in the spring on Secure Coding in C > and C++. Is there participation on this list from the (hopefully larger number of) CMU instructors who are teaching people to use safer languages in the first place ? --

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-12 Thread Robert C. Seacord
Gadi, I sort of agree with mic that the problem is poor programming. My last manager liked to pick up C text books at random and point out all the vulnerabilities in the code examples that are being used to teach the next generation of programmers (how to write vulnerabilities). > This communit

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-12 Thread mikeiscool
On 10/12/06, Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, how can we edit current basic programming college books to present > secure code, a couple of words of the correct way of doing things, and a > whole new chapter on secure coding (which may be redudndent?) > > How do we start? > > Some Whiley

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-12 Thread Gary McGraw
We're working on it! The problem is not simply a book. gem -Original Message- From: Gadi Evron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed Oct 11 20:58:12 2006 To: Kenneth Van Wyk Cc: Secure Coding Subject: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner yea

Re: [SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-12 Thread Gadi Evron
a. This community is perfect for this job. Gadi. > > gem > > -Original Message- > From: Gadi Evron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wed Oct 11 20:58:12 2006 > To: Kenneth Van Wyk > Cc: Secure Coding > Subject: [SC-L] re-writing colleg

[SC-L] re-writing college books [was: Re: A banner year for software bugs | Tech News on ZDNet]

2006-10-11 Thread Gadi Evron
So, how can we edit current basic programming college books to present secure code, a couple of words of the correct way of doing things, and a whole new chapter on secure coding (which may be redudndent?) How do we start? Some Whiley book for introduction to CS? Any volunteers to get this on th