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: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-05 14:39:19 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: mjsilva@jps.net (Mike Silva) 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. Date: 5 Aug 2001 14:39:19 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5267be60.0108051339.6d5f44c9@posting.google.com> References: <9kc355$ri0$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9kcdli$24o$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5267be60.0108030900.26d4a4e7@posting.google.com> <9kemhs$17g$2@news.du.uab.ericsson.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.239.204.210 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 997047559 28187 127.0.0.1 (5 Aug 2001 21:39:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Aug 2001 21:39:19 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11326 comp.lang.c:72333 comp.lang.c++:80153 comp.lang.functional:7321 Date: 2001-08-05T21:39:19+00:00 List-Id: mike@erix.ericsson.se (Mike Williams) wrote in message news:<9kemhs$17g$2@news.du.uab.ericsson.se>... > In article <5267be60.0108030900.26d4a4e7@posting.google.com>, > mjsilva@jps.net (Mike Silva) writes: > |> I've read a lot of speculation that the "Operand Error" in the report > |> was actually a CPU/FPU exception, but this is the most definitive > |> statement I've seen. In this case it seems reasonable to imagine that > |> the same results would have occurred regardless of the programming > |> language used. > > Perhaps not. In a programming language which supports multiple > task/threads/processes/whatever, it is possible to have a run time > system where failure in one task does not cause failure of the whole > system. In languages with unsafe pointers and without bounds checking, > of course one task can still sabotage another task. You can use an MMU > to prevent this, but we would then be talking of _very_ heavy weight > tasking (maybe what's sometimes called an OS :-). Except that the program (all or part) never crashed -- it was in full control all the way to the end, when it pulled the plug. My point was that the hardware exception would have almost certainly been coded to perform the exact same steps (log the failure, shut down the unit) regardless of the language used. Mike