3 ms·
Many, but I'm not sure most. However they nearly all involve someone (be it the language designer, compiler writer or application writer) not thinking about all
by gefh 11y ago
Many, but I'm not sure most.
However they nearly all involve someone (be it the language designer, compiler writer or application writer) not thinking about all the malicious possibilities of the code in question. Because that's not the problem they're trying to solve right now, and they're only human. And I only use security vulnerabilities as an example - the next thing we're all not thinking about might be power consumption, or creating AI paradoxes, or whatever. But we're definitely not thinking about it, and no-ones going to be proving it.
- gefh 11y agoAlso there are probably zero non-toy programs out there that don't have any undefined behavior in them :)
- lmm 11y ago> And I only use security vulnerabilities as an example - the next thing we're all not thinking about might be power consumption, or creating AI paradoxes, or whatever. But we're definitely not thinking about it, and no-ones going to be proving it. I don't think you have to be thinking about it. Every time some new class of vulnerabilities has arisen, e.g. SQL injection, it just hasn't affected well-formed programs written with good tools, and certainly not verified programs. Correct programs just don't have these problems, as a side effect of being correct.