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: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public
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: 2001-08-12 15:10:24 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!148.122.208.68!news2.oke.nextra.no!nextra.com!news1.oke.nextra.no.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3B76FBD0.F18C7A1A@online.no>
From: Tore Lund <tl001@online.no>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
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: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
  <slrn9ma7qp.nac.randhol@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
  <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
 <yecofq03kih.fsf@king.cts.com> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com>
 <ppsemtojqkqsqpfvj1th3mae8b4vu1tg89@4ax.com>
 <4a885870.0108112341.7ce02ac0@posting.google.com>
 <17cd177c.0108121119.1937a52a@posting.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.67.65.120
X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@nextra.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 00:09:33 MET DST
Organization: Nextra Public Access
X-Trace: readme.online.no 997654173 130.67.65.120
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 23:57:36 +0200
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11826 comp.lang.c:73805
 comp.lang.c++:81977 comp.lang.functional:7497
Date: 2001-08-12T23:57:36+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Gautier wrote:
> 
> Windows 98 ... a success of the pointer-to-buffer macro-assemblers.

Please don't blame assembler for Win98.  And there is nothing wrong
about using pointers to buffers.  The trouble starts when you misuse
them.
-- 
    Tore