That’s a good one and valid, but not one of the bugs anyone else has brought up
. Besides, having bugs isn’t the issue. Resolving, reducing, and remaining well architected is the point.
-
-
Replying to @DonAndrewBailey
Yep. And choosing a language that eliminates whole classes of exploitable vulnerabilities is part of good architecture in my book. I won't deny that OpenSSH is comparatively well written. But writing C is much harder than most people realize. Undefined behaviour everywhere.
1 reply 1 retweet 20 likes -
Replying to @andreasdotorg
Yeah no one is disagreeing. Ignoring better options isn’t the point. Acknowledging that good architecture is a choice is. It isn’t really “harder” now, either. In fact it’s easier today to write safe C than ever before. We know more & have better tools/OS guards. It’s easy now :)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @DonAndrewBailey
Easy really is the wrong word here. And there's still stuff sanitizers and static analyzers don't see. There's still exploits despite mitigations. In most cases, there's just no need to waste cognitive load on low level details. Higher level languages are more economical.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @andreasdotorg
I’m one of the best when it comes to finding 0day in C. :) but I know it’s easy now, to write safe C. You can disagree all you want, but the tools and mitigation’s are available. Our industry failure is not making access simple and straight forward.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DonAndrewBailey
#define SIZE 8192 char buf[SIZE]; void cpy(struct foo* p, int count) { int n = count * sizeof(struct foo); if ((n < SIZE) && (n > 0)) memcpy(buf, p, n); } Safe or not? Why? How many people can spot this? Which tools? Far from easy.6 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @andreasdotorg
Creating situations that are easily avoidable doesn’t prove your point, it proves mine. :)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @DonAndrewBailey
What about the situation in the above code is easy to avoid? I've shown the snippet to rooms full of people who do code audits for a living. Maybe 1 in 30 even gets what the problem is. Regular engineers? Zero out of 30.
5 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @andreasdotorg
That’s total nonsense. No one that does professional code auditing would miss that. It’s the most basic C issue. I feel like you’re just trying hard to make your point. There are far more serious undefined issues. Evading this is cake.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @DonAndrewBailey @andreasdotorg
A majority of my public exploits since ~2005 have come from this class. See the LZ4/LZO bug from 2014 as an example.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yup, just checked. Run-off-the-mill integer overflow. No UB magic in sight in this vuln.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.