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: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-17 11:10:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.ems.psu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!east1.newsfeed.sprint-canada.net!news.storm.ca!nnrp1.tor.metronet.ca!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B7D5E18.985F2E8F@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: <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <9kbvsr$a02@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3B69DB35.4412459E@home.com> <3B6F312F.DA4E178E@home.com> <23lok9.ioi.ln@10.0.0.2> <3B70AB15.35845A98@home.com> <3B721FF5.B7D854F6@home.com> <3B7BC847.61D7EF55@home.com> <3B7BCEC4.202A3FA@cfmu.eurocontrol.int> <3B7C0397.3AD029C6@home.com> <3B7C0F90.EC31384B@sensor.com> <3B7C3016.9D6085A@home.com> <87vgjnvh9v.fsf@pfaffben.user.msu.edu> <3B7C3C2F.57D11F79@spamcop.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:10:33 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.47.195 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:10:33 MDT Organization: MetroNet Communications Group Inc. Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12064 comp.lang.c:75050 comp.lang.c++:83468 Date: 2001-08-17T18:10:33+00:00 List-Id: Ron Natalie wrote: > Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > > > > I have seen implementations return the "rounded" size for this. That > > > was my only point, and the rest is nothing new. I did not refer to > > > wide characters and such. > > > > You have never seen an ANSI/ISO C implementation with a "rounded" > > size for this, because this would be a violation of the C > > standards and thus it would not be a C implementation at all. > > Maybe you've seen something "C-like" that does that, but it > > wasn't C. > > Yes, never, ever seen that. Perhaps the confusion is that some > compilers will (and are allowed to) add padding between the > "implemenation defined place" that the string literals are stored, > but that isn't reflected in sizeof, it's lost space. Nope, not confusing it with padding. However, I'll grant that it may have been a "broken implementation" ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://members.home.net/ve3wwg