> However, giving you the benefit of the doubt I appreciate that. > There tens of thousands of programmers out there (myself included) who write software to a

> However, giving you the benefit of the doubt I appreciate that. > There tens of thousands of programmers out there (myself included) who write software to analyze data. We don't make "apps" for users, and we don't download random PDFs or MP3s for input. Your view is so limited, you can't even imagine software that isn't a product or a tool for advertising, but trust me - a lot of software is written in other environments, and malicious users or malicious data is not a real concern. Ahh. It's funny - you think I can't think of all the software where security isn't an issue, and I think you can't think of all the software where security is an issue. I'm aware that there is software where, rightly, security isn't a huge concern. It exists. Some software for crunching data internally counts! And some software is written where the front door is wide open anyways. But the scope for software where security isn't a concern sure as shit isn't "everything but public facing servers or web browsers", as I took you to imply. It's also not "everything but products and advertising tools". Point of sales systems, industrial control software, internal financial software, routers, telecom infrastructure... all kinds of wonderful "internal", bespoke systems, that most definitely need to care about security and protection against malicious users, or malicious employees. Industries where mandatory vacations are a security policy against fraud, where your software will be generating audit logs, where defense in depth matters against external threats even if you could trust your employees. Which are just chock full of C programs. Sigh. > I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. Fair enough. Thank you for taking the time you did. > Look, you're just another arrogant novice who runs around telling people how to be safe Yeah, probably. Not so arrogant as to be certain I can think of every reason my software might actually need to care about security, or to try and write security critical C in good conscious, though. > so you can convince yourself that you're safe. I'd never succeed at that. Safer, maybe, but never safe. > Maybe you'll grow out of that, or maybe you'll stay obnoxious forever. For the sake of progress and a safer future, let's hope for the latter.