From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-06 11:12:58 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B6ED4FF.F3A9D29F@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. References: <9k9if8$rn3$1@elf.eng.bsdi.com> <3B687EDF.9359F3FC@mediaone.net> <5267be60.0108021911.7d8fe4@posting.google.com> <9kmbc9$e64$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 18:12:57 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.90.169.68 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 997121577 12.90.169.68 (Mon, 06 Aug 2001 18:12:57 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 18:12:57 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11406 comp.lang.c:72528 comp.lang.c++:80407 comp.lang.functional:7358 Date: 2001-08-06T18:12:57+00:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > > "Tor Rustad" wrote in message > news:cOHa7.3620$e%4.107328@news3.oke.nextra.no... > > ... snip ... > > > > To re-use an old design or not, is also design descision IMHO. Not testing > > it, is a really bad descision, perhaps the biggest one in this sad story. > > > Well, true enough. But remember that they were basically taking an > off-the-shelf product and bolting it on to a new application. This was > hardly the fault of the original design engineers. It was the fault of bad > management decisions in deciding to "reuse an old design" that had a proven > track record and *assuming* that it would work correctly in the new > application. I don't think that is correct. As I read this thread, the problem was in the documentation of the module. That should have stated, somewhere, "This module is specific to the Arianne 4 flight path". Possibly, at some point it was not, but once the specificity went in so should have the documentation annotation. To quote a famous actor "you gotta know your limitations". -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@XXXXworldnet.att.net) (Remove "XXXX" from reply address. yahoo works unmodified) mailto:uce@ftc.gov (for spambots to harvest)