Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2007-01-04 Thread Florian Weimer
* Crispin Cowan: I'm with you on the C and C++ argument, but what is immature about Java? I thought Java was a huge step forward, because for the first time, a statically typesafe language was widely popular. Java is not statically typesafe, see the beloved ArrayStoreException (and

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2007-01-02 Thread ljknews
At 2:18 PM + 1/2/07, Peter Amey wrote: [snip] Isn't the whole basis of Spark a matter of adding proof statements in the comments ? I don't think the general compiler marketplace would go for that built-in to compilers. After all: 1. The Praxis implementation can be used

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2007-01-02 Thread Peter Amey
[snip] Isn't the whole basis of Spark a matter of adding proof statements in the comments ? I don't think the general compiler marketplace would go for that built-in to compilers. After all: 1. The Praxis implementation can be used with multiple compilers 2. The

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2007-01-02 Thread McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT)
which invalidates the above. -Original Message- From: Temin, Aaron L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:38 PM To: McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT); Secure Coding Subject: RE: [SC-L] Compilers It would be worth knowing more about the basis you use for drawing

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2007-01-02 Thread Peter Amey
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ljknews Sent: 02 January 2007 14:20 To: Secure Coding Subject: Re: [SC-L] Compilers At 2:18 PM + 1/2/07, Peter Amey wrote: [snip] We think so! However, like everything else

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2007-01-02 Thread Leichter, Jerry
| ...P.S. Please watch for the unfortunate word wrap in the URL of my | original post. The broken link still works but goes to thw wrong place! Now, *there's* an interesting hazard! One can imagine some interesting scenarios where this could be more than unfortunate. At the least, it could be

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2006-12-29 Thread Leichter, Jerry
| I _strongly_ encourage development with maximal warnings turned on. | However, this does have some side-effects because many compilers | give excessive spurious warnings. It's especially difficult to | do with pre-existing code (the effort can be herculean). Agreed. Writing for maximum freedom

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2006-12-29 Thread Florian Weimer
* Crispin Cowan: ljknews wrote: 2. The compiler market is so immature that some people are still using C, C++ and Java. I'm with you on the C and C++ argument, but what is immature about Java? I thought Java was a huge step forward, because for the first time, a statically

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2006-12-28 Thread David A. Wheeler
I _strongly_ encourage development with maximal warnings turned on. However, this does have some side-effects because many compilers give excessive spurious warnings. It's especially difficult to do with pre-existing code (the effort can be herculean). An interesting discussion about warning

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2006-12-27 Thread SC-L Subscriber Dave Aronson
Tim Hollebeek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wonders: are shops that insist on warning free compiles really that rare? Yes. I've worked for or with many companies over the years, totalling probably somewhere in the mid-teens or so. In all that, there was, to the best of my recollection, only

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2006-12-27 Thread Tim Hollebeek
However, not all of the kinds of things should be put in the compiler (how many coders do you know that use the -Wall??!). All the decent ones??? I remember people talking about Warning free with -Wall as a minimal requirement, and personally using that standard, over 15 years ago. And

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2006-12-26 Thread Crispin Cowan
ljknews wrote: 2. The compiler market is so immature that some people are still using C, C++ and Java. I'm with you on the C and C++ argument, but what is immature about Java? I thought Java was a huge step forward, because for the first time, a statically typesafe language

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2006-12-22 Thread mikeiscool
On 12/22/06, Gary McGraw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a better idead. Stop using C++. Jeeze. Even better then that; stop programming insecurely. gem *rolleyes* -- mic ___ Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org List

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2006-12-22 Thread James Walden
On 12/21/06, Gary McGraw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a better idead. Stop using C++. Jeeze. I'll second that recommendation. Given the abundance of better languages, there are few good reasons to use dangerous languages like C++ on new projects. It's easier and less time consuming to

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2006-12-22 Thread James Walden
On 12/21/06, Stephen de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can achieve very similar goals by using unit tests. Although the tests are not integrated into the code as tightly as something like Spark (or enforcing rules in the compiler), they are considered part of the source. IMO unit and

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2006-12-21 Thread Gary McGraw
Integration of some of the static techniques found in tools like fortify into compilers does make sense. However, not all of the kinds of things should be put in the compiler (how many coders do you know that use the -Wall??!). So one use case for some of the knowledge would be compiler

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2006-12-21 Thread Gunnar Peterson
Sure it should be built into the language, and I assume it will be eventually. Heck it only took 30 or 40 years for people to force developers to use Try...Catch blocks. -gp On 12/21/06 9:30 AM, McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been noodling the problem space of

Re: [SC-L] Compilers

2006-12-21 Thread David A. Wheeler
McGovern, James F \(HTSC, IT\) I have been noodling the problem space of secure coding after attending a wonderful class taught by Ken Van Wyk. I have been casually checking out Fortify, Ounce Labs, etc and have a thought that this stuff should really be part of the compiler and not a