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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?=
 =?utf-8?Q?=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Heartbleed
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 22:40:34 +0200
Organization: Ada @ Home
Message-ID: <op.xd701wysule2fv@cardamome>
References: <1ljwj8f.1wqbhvuabsdw1N%csampson@inetworld.net>
 <51c7d6d4-e3be-44d5-a4ce-f7e875345588@googlegroups.com>
 <li9g34$9q8$1@dont-email.me> <%J32v.70539$kp1.45343@fx14.iad>
 <liap70$ckq$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <87mwfq4vvj.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com>
 <lymwfqo0j4.fsf@pushface.org> <87eh124awq.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aj6W7pNyVjZwdnARGbUbeg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:19281
Date: 2014-04-12T22:40:34+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Sat, 12 Apr 2014 21:15:17 +0200, Pascal J. Bourguignon  =

<pjb@informatimago.com> a =C3=A9crit:
> There will always be bugs remaining, even in tested and more
> importantly, **even in proven software!**

Are you really sure? Can you point to at least one example please (excep=
t  =

bad specifications)? Unless there is a soundness issue (some checker has=
  =

this issue, and are known to has one, but the most famous ones don't) or=
  =

else a specification error, I really can't see how. Note a specification=
  =

error will fail with a dynamic language too: a dynamic language will do =
 =

the wrong thing if you tell it to do the wrong thing, it won't guess and=
  =

fix it=E2=80=91self on your behalf. So, the only remaining possible case=
 of  =

=E2=80=9Cbroken formally verified software=E2=80=9D which is relevant he=
re, is the one  =

with a formal verifier which has soundness issues (possibly the so calle=
d  =

Pollack-inconsistency, which is a human/formal=E2=80=91system interface =
issue).  =

Still note you can check a proof with different systems, and there are  =

standard appearing to help in that matter. Ex. OpenTheory, a standard to=
  =

import/export HOL proofs in a raw format, not human readable, but fully =
 =

machine checkable. If the proof of a theory is checked with say, two or =
 =

three different enough systems, it's very unlikely there is a issue with=
  =

the proof.


-- =

=E2=80=9CSyntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=E2=80=9D [1]
=E2=80=9CStructured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.=
=E2=80=9D [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming =E2=80=94 Alan J. =E2=80=94 P. Yale Univers=
ity