[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1XcIwW-0005Js-Lx@rmm6prod02.runbox.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@...eeler.com>
To: "oss-security" <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Shellshock and beyond
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 10:34:49 -0700, Tracy Reed <treed@...raviolet.org> wrote:
> Sure, but at least with Haskell (and the like) you have to make it very
> explicit that this is what you want to do.
Not in this case. A Haskell implementation of the POSIX "sh" specification,
that then added function imports, could have made the same mistake
just as easily.
> Educating developers will be equally hard as switching to safer languages but
> at least it is something people will stomache getting started on.
I'm all for switching to safer languages where it makes sense; many
problems are completely prevented by them. Heartbleed, for example,
would have been prevented in almost all languages *except* C and C++,
as I have already publicly noted here:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/heartbleed.html#safe-language
But let's not oversell the tools. Shellshock was the running of data
as a command in program whose *purpose* was to be a command interpreter.
A rewritten Haskell version (for example) could do it just as easily.
Also, I think you're underestimating the cost of language switching.
It is a *big* deal to switch languages in an existing code base.
Educating developers is less risky, way faster, and costs less too.
--- David A. Wheeler
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
