Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Unexecutable Stack / Buffer Overflow Exploits... | From | Florian Weimer <> | Date | 28 Dec 1999 12:42:11 +0100 |
| |
nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:
> To the person that said most modern clients are smart enough to change UID > before accepting user input, I have to ask, how many times have you had to > upgrade sendmail, bind, ftpd, popd, imapd, rstatd, rlockd, portmap, .... > because of buffer overflow exploits that keep popping up?
One question always comes to my mind when I read those security advisories (especially when they deal with software which has `security' on its feature list): Why are people using C for project which explicitly aim at security, although experience has shown that it is extremly difficult to write secure software in C? Why don't they use a programming language in which buffer overflows cannot happen?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |