Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | RE: Update: Web browsers - a mini-farce (MSIE gives in) |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:20:40 -1000 (HST) |
You don't have to understand how to exploit a buffer overflow in order to avoid overflowing buffers.But you have to think of a buffer being overflowed to check for it.Anyone who doesn't understand that a finite-size container cannot hold more than what it can hold is unlikely to manage to write software.
Michael, the entire premise of your posting is that a programmer can write secure code without knowing what constitutes exploitable code. I'm going to have to strongly disagree. It might be the case that a programmer recognizes that there is a bug present when there is a fixed sized container and its possible to put more into it than it should be able to contain. Even this is not always the case. Heck, I write software and sometimes there are buffer overflows in my own code that I dont recognize at first, and I get paid to analyze software looking for problems like this. But lets assume that a good programmer is writing software and it comes to his attention that there is a buffer overflow, or that user input is not being filtered, or that user input is being passed to a printf type function. What happens next? Well, it depends on how many bugs there are, how much other work needs to be done, and very importantly, what the perceived impact of that bug is. You cannot imagine how many times a bug is pointed out and the author of the software says "ok, that bug can only happen if the user does something stupid, and it is not exploitable. Lets defer that one." It turns out that these bugs are exploitable a lot more often than most non-security people know. It can even be hard for people who do this for a living to make the proper determination without lots and lots of analysis and head banging, but that's another discussion... In summary, I think its very important that software writers understand, at least in some minimal way, what constitutes an exploitable security vulnerability. You cannot expect to write code that is free of security defects without understanding the principles. (Ok, in fairness you can't really expect to write code that is free of security defects even when you understand the principles, but at least it helps).
Michael Wojcik Principal Software Systems Developer, Micro Focus
Tim N.
| Previous by Date: | RE: Update: Web browsers - a mini-farce (MSIE gives in), Tim Newsham |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Update: Web browsers - a mini-farce (MSIE gives in), infamous41md |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Update: Web browsers - a mini-farce (MSIE gives in), Michael Shigorin |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Update: Web browsers - a mini-farce (MSIE gives in), David Brodbeck |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |