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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-23 22:19:33 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!west.cox.net!cox.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny02.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030131
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language
References: <mHZ0a.42983$jM5.108891@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
 <nRg1a.190899$HG.32437469@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
 <3E51908E.9CCA3412@adaworks.com>
 <8Gh4a.7455$_c6.743959@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
 <3E51ABCE.5491B9A2@adaworks.com> <b2spe6$p23$1@helle.btinternet.com>
 <3E5273DE.2050206@cox.net> <3E531E6F.BDFB2599@adaworks.com>
 <3E546C45.4010406@cox.net> <3E54F926.441D5BB5@adaworks.com>
 <1045763933.848350@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <42EA55F4BE83950E.F1DA277C2FDC157B.C804C1C52FE95D65@lp.airnews.net>
 <1045769690.126389@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <2lb33b.7d6.ln@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <1045772065.590669@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <oprkxqhntnmzo9uz@news.vol.cz>
 <1045839283.86671@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <uof52dcuy.fsf@xsol.com>
In-Reply-To: <uof52dcuy.fsf@xsol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <UPi6a.4466$8f7.333@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:19:32 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.83.251.13
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrdny02.gnilink.net 1046067572 162.83.251.13 (Mon,
 24 Feb 2003 01:19:32 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:19:32 EST
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:34496
Date: 2003-02-24T06:19:32+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Berend de Boer wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that with those checks included we would have zero
> buffer overflow errors and your credit card info would be a lot safer.

For the upteenth time, I qualified my statement with "when continued
operation is important". It's not important for a web server to stay
up when it's being attacked if it discovers that it is behaving
erroneously. It is important that a rocket or an airplane which is in
the middle of flying not have its software decide to shut down.

As for my credit card safety, have you seen the news lately? About
the easy attacks on ATM PIN numbers that can have bank insiders
steal your money in fifteen tries or less? Complex software has
complex failure modes. Patting yourself on the back for catching
buffer overruns is a little premature.