3 ms·
> That the language requires constant, conscious diligence to achieve a security baseline that comes for free in other languages is wasteful. For extremely exp
by VikingCoder 15y ago
> That the language requires constant, conscious diligence to achieve a security baseline that comes for free in other languages is wasteful.
For extremely expensive values of "free."
- jacques_chester 15y agoCould you elaborate?
- VikingCoder 15y agoNo language exists yet that is aware of all security issues. No matter what language, library, framework, toolset you use, you need to be aware of multiple vectors of attack. Claiming that some languages solve these problems for you, for free, is disingenuous.
- jacques_chester 15y agoThat's not what I claimed. I pointed out that languages with safe string handling and memory management have a higher security baseline. As in, what you start with, for "free". Achieving comparable string and memory security in C/C++ is an expense. You must take active steps to prevent those exploits; and even then human error means that you will have a higher risk than the "free baseline" languages.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]