[Gllug] Re: M$ "Bounty"

[Richard Jones]

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 12:27:09PM +0000, Richard wrote:
[Bill [Gates?] waffle about "securotics".]

I think the point Mr Gates might be making is a valid one: languages,
compilers, operating systems and hardware should be performing more
automatic checks.

There's really no excuse in 2003 to be writing critical infrastructure
in a language which doesn't support bounds checking, strong typing and
data tainting. There's not much more excuse for using a system which
doesn't have strong security mechanisms such as capabilities or ACLs,
all enforced by the hardware.

Neither Linux nor Windows perform adequately when measured against the
standards of the best of systems from the 70s.

Interesting paper on a similar subject:

http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/rob/utah2000.ps

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones. http://www.annexia.org/ http://freshmeat.net/users/rwmj
Merjis Ltd. http://www.merjis.com/ - improving website return on investment
"One serious obstacle to the adoption of good programming languages is
the notion that everything has to be sacrificed for speed. In computer
languages as in life, speed kills." -- Mike Vanier

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug