News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on OpenSSL Security Advisory. Parent comment

Re:OpenSSL Security Advisory by banachtarski on Thursday September 22, 2016 @03:59PM (#12559834)
> Use a language that makes a bunch of security flaws impossible

The implicit assumption here is that the language isn't at the same time introducing a number of other vulnerabilities. Is there a language you would like to suggest?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:OpenSSL Security Advisory by seanwilson on Friday September 23, 2016 @08:25AM (#12564013)
I'd wager the vast, vast majority of Java, Python and OCaml projects would have significantly less security exploits compared to an equivalent C project. Simply making buffer overflows impossible (as much as they can be) takes a huge burden away from you.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:OpenSSL Security Advisory by chrismonsanto on Thursday September 22, 2016 @07:44PM (#12561281)
"Actually, more static analysis makes things less secure"

That is a preposterous argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:OpenSSL Security Advisory by autognosis on Friday September 23, 2016 @02:50AM (#12562794)
I agree. But who are you talking to? I didn't see that argument made.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:OpenSSL Security Advisory by banachtarski on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @05:59PM (#12593590)
Come again?
[ Parent | on HN ]