From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-06 20:09:37 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc2.on.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B6F5BF6.1E22543B@home.com> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. References: <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3b6a453c.1193942215@news.worldonline.nl> <9keejl$fhj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3c30da40.0108060848.796d9bd9@posting.google.com> <3B6F3216.F410BBFF@home.com> <3B6F3FAE.B9B9FFCF@globetrotter.qc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 03:09:36 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.193.224 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc2.on.home.com 997153776 24.141.193.224 (Mon, 06 Aug 2001 20:09:36 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 20:09:36 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11443 comp.lang.c:72610 comp.lang.c++:80524 Date: 2001-08-07T03:09:36+00:00 List-Id: Chris Wolfe wrote: > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote: > > Preben Randhol wrote: > [snip] > > > Yes it was. Ada in itself is not a slower language. Though the extra > > > security of runtime checks like boundary checks will cost a bit. C > > > doesn't have this. Your point was that speed was more important than the > > > extra security. I don't agree. > > > > Not only that, C/C++ _cannot_ provide those checks. To include those > > checks, requires that someone provide them, whether they be assert() > > macros or some other means. This means that it is also possible that > > the assert macros can be incorrectly coded, and never triggered when > > intended. > > Egad... my compiler's fictional! I suppose C and C++ _cannot_ > provide garbage collection either? Or automatic serialization, or > range-checked arithmetic types, or anything else that the > compiler writer decides to include. Well, tell us just _what_ compiler you are using, and just how it addresses the identified issues. You have done neither :) > It does not require any overwhelming work to convert an Ada > program directly into a functionally identical C++ program using > appropriate (non-standard) templates. We're we talking about doing "conversions"? Let's stick to the discussion here, if you want to respond to "points made". > Amazingly these templates > also tend to spawn safe versions of the standard C functions. > What was that drivel about pipe again? Spawn? Templates? Show us how this solves the problems identified, and maybe we'll be enlightened. Again.. no substance to your post :) > I have no issues with propaganda, but it being blatantly wrong is > somewhat annoying. I challenge you to show us just "how blatantly wrong" I am. I can handle being wrong. Just ask my wife ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://members.home.net/ve3wwg