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-Thread: 103376,37c1639cf6a3bbba X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: A scary story from the real world. Date: 9 Nov 2007 15:25:32 -0600 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: References: <0Q0Zi.409$CT3.318@newsfet01.ams> <1194641160.406321.39310@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1194643444 2635 192.135.80.34 (9 Nov 2007 21:24:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:24:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-Bytes: 1995 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18235 Date: 2007-11-09T15:25:32-06:00 List-Id: In article , Per Sandberg writes: > Jerry wrote: >> On Nov 9, 10:33 am, Per Sandberg wrote: >>> I was on a conference this week and that opened my eyes on the complete >>> ignorance of good compilers and languages in some the Reliable SW >>> communities. >>> http://www.issre2007.hv.se/extra/pod/ >>> There was lots of talks about on how to detect values out of bounds and >>> other problems that reasonable languages with type-system would find >>> probably at compile time. >>> >>> One Microsoft person said "we had lots of crashes in the system and the >>> cause of that was that the driver vendors did not look on the return >>> code from functions" >>> Then the blamed the poor programmer for not reading the secret "users >>> manual". >>> /Per >> >> Was Ada even mentioned? >> Jerry >> >> > > No ! > And that was what i found scary. > From my perspective the whole conference was about how to we make the > best out after we have crashed instead of how do we avoid to crash. That seems to be the attitude on the Secure Coding mailing list: http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l