Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:49:45 -0700 From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: De Raadt + FBSD + OpenSSH + hole? Message-ID: <98152.1398116985@server1.tristatelogic.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404212324520.32719@pohjola.cksoft.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404212324520.32719@pohjola.cksoft.de>, Christian Kratzer <ck-lists@cksoft.de> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Apr 2014, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> >> In message <53546795.9050304@quietfountain.com>, >> "hcoin" <hcoin@quietfountain.com> wrote: >> >>> ... It is for the community to decide whether it is 'worth it' >>> on a case by case basis given there is no way to prove a program >>> 'correct' from a security perspective. >> >> I guess that I was sick that day in software school. >> >> Did I just hear you tell me that I can't prove the following program >> is "secure"? >> >> >> int >> main (void) >> { >> return 0; >> } > >in an ideal world you could propably. The difficulty ist that even >above seemingly trival snippet of code is run after initialization of >the c runtime library and some pre processing of argc, argv. > >It gets more complex with c++ contstructors run before main. > >If gets even more complex the more software components interact in >wierd and wonderfull ways. At the risk of stating the obvious... Complexity != Impossibility I think that we need better tools. But then again, I have always thought that, and undoubtedly always will. Regards, rfg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?98152.1398116985>