3 ms·
If I wrote a library to open jpegs, it correctly loads all standard jpegs, and it's free of security issues - is that not complete? It's not like it's desirabl
by michaelt 3y ago
If I wrote a library to open jpegs, it correctly loads all standard jpegs, and it's free of security issues - is that not complete?
It's not like it's desirable for standard formats to one day start getting interpreted in a different way.
- gtirloni 3y agoIt's free of security issues in the current context, that's the point. You depend on calling a standard library function that was found deficient (maybe it's impossible to make it secure) and deprecated. Now there is a new function you should call. Your software doesn't work anymore when the deprecated function is removed. Sure, you can say your software is feature complete but you have to specify the external environment it's supposed to run on. And THAT is always changing. You're both right but looking at different timelines. Relevant: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/software-engineering-at/9781492082781/ch01.html https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/software-engineering-at...
- ranger207 3y ago> and it's free of security issues That's a biiiiig if
- ruszki 3y agoJust to add another thing that changes to the other ones which were already mentioned by sibling comments: “standard jpegs” are not necessarily set in stone.