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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-07 21:25:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc2.on.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B70BF53.85693738@home.com> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. References: <3c30da40.0108060848.796d9bd9@posting.google.com> <3B6F3216.F410BBFF@home.com> <9ko46g$a0f$1@elf.eng.bsdi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 04:25:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.193.224 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc2.on.home.com 997244750 24.141.193.224 (Tue, 07 Aug 2001 21:25:50 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 21:25:50 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11572 comp.lang.c:72824 comp.lang.c++:80837 Date: 2001-08-08T04:25:50+00:00 List-Id: Chris Torek wrote: > > In article <3B6F3216.F410BBFF@home.com> > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG writes: > >Not only that, C/C++ _cannot_ provide [array bounds] checks. > > We have proof by counterexample that C compilers *can* do this, > because Bounds-Checking GCC exists. (It is not the only one that > does it, but it is an easy way to demonstrate it.) Well, I didn't actually intend for this to mean that it is impossible-- only that it is generally not done, nor is mandated. In Ada, this type of thing cannot be omitted.. otherwise it ain't Ada. At what version of GCC did this feature go in? What does it do at runtime when the array bounds are exceeded? Exception? Abort? > It *is* true that typical C compilers do not even attempt to > check array subscripts, but this is implementation, not specification. > (Ada programmers, at least, ought to know the difference. :-) ) Ada programmers don't need to worry about it because it is always available in their compilers. However, they may have to turn the runtime checks on however, depending upon the compiler used. Anyway, I will repeat that I didn't mean that it was impossible. Only that most compiler do _not_ make this an option (ie. you have no choice in the matter). -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://members.home.net/ve3wwg