News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Getting Past C by nickpsecurity on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @09:17PM (#13315148)
I see where you're going with this. I normally would agree. In this case, we have a large, C program that evolved over time for a complicated feature set. That they trimmed that much fat out might already be saying something about how much risk might be in that code. It's also been around a long time in important infrastructure plus will continue to be. Converting it to something that's safer in most ways, esp dynamic memory & types, to reduce number of vulnerabilities in near and long-term makes sense.

So long as one can convert it in a straight-forward way that preserves the current meaning of the program's statements. If not, the port might introduce new problems.

Edit: Btw, send me an email (see profile). Got something you might be interested in. One or two things.

Re:Getting Past C by ArkyBeagle on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @07:46AM (#13317774)
Yep. It's always about "the space between the buttons" in code bases. That's not pretty; I know that. It's a huge source of human suffering. But I wonder how reducible it truly can be. As they say, its (still) early days yet.

That (email thing) would be awesome, Nick. Thanks.