3 ms·
You're right, web developers already write software with all the security of a colander. You can go one of two ways, 1.) you can devise a language that can't ex
by DanWaterworth 16y ago
You're right, web developers already write software with all the security of a colander. You can go one of two ways, 1.) you can devise a language that can't express an insecure application or 2.) you can teach people about security. I know which option I prefer.
- jerf 16y agoI assume you mean #2? Because here we are in year, oh, 17 or 18 or so of web development give or take a couple of years and that's worked out so well, hasn't it? It's a beautiful sentiment. It hasn't worked. Handing them new vectors to screw up in is not going to solve the problem. It also doesn't matter. Hand a developer a tool that requires them to continuously pay attention to an issue and no matter how good they are, at some point they will slip, because they're human. We've tried "teach them about security" a couple hundred times, maybe it's time we try "devise a language that can't trivially express an insecure application". C will not be the language that implements that, it completely lacks any of the necessary primitives, by design.
- tptacek 16y agoOverly reductive. There is an actual security benefit to using environments that minimize memory corruption. Educating devs helps, but educated devs do not reliably avoid memory corruption.