• Manfred_Nowak (4/4) Feb 19 2010 http://cwe.mitre.org/top25/
• retard (7/11) Feb 19 2010 At least I can see a lot of reasons why D is vulnerable to many of those...
• Walter Bright (3/17) Feb 19 2010 D has safe mode, which when used offers as much safety as C# or Java.
• Andrei Alexandrescu (3/14) Feb 19 2010 I guess SafeD wouldn't be the slouch of the three.
• Justin Johansson (3/16) Feb 19 2010 Ur/Web sounds interesting.
• Andrei Alexandrescu (7/13) Feb 19 2010 Bounds checking takes care of quite a few issues, but that's a banal
• Walter Bright (3/6) Feb 19 2010 I agree that engaging the type system's help to track untrusted data
• Robert Jacques (10/14) Feb 19 2010 I really don't like this list because its a list of unsecure coding
• Andrei Alexandrescu (3/22) Feb 19 2010 As far as I can tell low-level races are impossible in SafeD.
• Andrei Alexandrescu (3/22) Feb 19 2010 Oh hey... null pointer dereference is not on the list :o).

"Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:

http://cwe.mitre.org/top25/
shows patterns of attacs.

Does someone see a way to use D design patterns to stop attack patterns?

-manfred

retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:44:14 +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:

 http://cwe.mitre.org/top25/
 shows patterns of attacs.
 
 Does someone see a way to use D design patterns to stop attack patterns?

At least I can see a lot of reasons why D is vulnerable to many of those 
low level attacks because of the desire to be able to control every 

from this point of view. At least in the web environment some state of 
the art technologies immediately come to mind http://lambda-the-
ultimate.org/node/3068

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

retard wrote:
 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:44:14 +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:
 
 http://cwe.mitre.org/top25/
 shows patterns of attacs.

 Does someone see a way to use D design patterns to stop attack patterns?

 
 At least I can see a lot of reasons why D is vulnerable to many of those 
 low level attacks because of the desire to be able to control every 

 from this point of view.





 At least in the web environment some state of 
 the art technologies immediately come to mind http://lambda-the-
 ultimate.org/node/3068

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

retard wrote:
 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:44:14 +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:
 
 http://cwe.mitre.org/top25/
 shows patterns of attacs.

 Does someone see a way to use D design patterns to stop attack patterns?

 
 At least I can see a lot of reasons why D is vulnerable to many of those 
 low level attacks because of the desire to be able to control every 

 from this point of view.

I guess SafeD wouldn't be the slouch of the three.

Andrei

Justin Johansson <no spam.com> writes:

retard wrote:
 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:44:14 +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:
 
 http://cwe.mitre.org/top25/
 shows patterns of attacs.

 Does someone see a way to use D design patterns to stop attack patterns?

 
 At least I can see a lot of reasons why D is vulnerable to many of those 
 low level attacks because of the desire to be able to control every 

 from this point of view. At least in the web environment some state of 
 the art technologies immediately come to mind

 http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3068

Ur/Web sounds interesting.

Have you actually tried it in anger?

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Manfred_Nowak wrote:
 http://cwe.mitre.org/top25/
 shows patterns of attacs.
 
 Does someone see a way to use D design patterns to stop attack patterns?
 
 -manfred

Bounds checking takes care of quite a few issues, but that's a banal 
thing to remark.

One more interesting thing that I see doable (and have seen done in e.g. 
Perl) is the  tainted attribute, which marks an untrusted string. That 
could help with [2], [6], [7], [9], [20].


Andrei

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 One more interesting thing that I see doable (and have seen done in e.g. 
 Perl) is the  tainted attribute, which marks an untrusted string. That 
 could help with [2], [6], [7], [9], [20].

I agree that engaging the type system's help to track untrusted data 
through the code can be very helpful.

"Robert Jacques" <sandford jhu.edu> writes:

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:44:14 -0500, Manfred_Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com>  
wrote:

 http://cwe.mitre.org/top25/
 shows patterns of attacs.

 Does someone see a way to use D design patterns to stop attack patterns?

 -manfred

I really don't like this list because its a list of unsecure coding  
patterns and not dangerous one. The only one of them has ever killed  

also put "poorly written error messages", "integer overflows" and  
"corrupting datafiles" up there as things that have killed people.

Anyways, in response to your question D's concurrency strategy should make  
it (relatively) difficult to cause races. And most of the attack patterns  
are at a higher level than raw code.

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Robert Jacques wrote:
 On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:44:14 -0500, Manfred_Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> 
 wrote:
 
 http://cwe.mitre.org/top25/
 shows patterns of attacs.

 Does someone see a way to use D design patterns to stop attack patterns?

 -manfred

 
 I really don't like this list because its a list of unsecure coding 
 patterns and not dangerous one. The only one of them has ever killed 

 also put "poorly written error messages", "integer overflows" and 
 "corrupting datafiles" up there as things that have killed people.
 
 Anyways, in response to your question D's concurrency strategy should 
 make it (relatively) difficult to cause races. And most of the attack 
 patterns are at a higher level than raw code.

As far as I can tell low-level races are impossible in SafeD.

Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Robert Jacques wrote:
 On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:44:14 -0500, Manfred_Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> 
 wrote:
 
 http://cwe.mitre.org/top25/
 shows patterns of attacs.

 Does someone see a way to use D design patterns to stop attack patterns?

 -manfred

 
 I really don't like this list because its a list of unsecure coding 
 patterns and not dangerous one. The only one of them has ever killed 

 also put "poorly written error messages", "integer overflows" and 
 "corrupting datafiles" up there as things that have killed people.
 
 Anyways, in response to your question D's concurrency strategy should 
 make it (relatively) difficult to cause races. And most of the attack 
 patterns are at a higher level than raw code.

Oh hey... null pointer dereference is not on the list :o).

Andrei