From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OY0rh-0004FF-Ch for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:02:59 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0ACBDE0D1E; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:02:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ey0-f181.google.com (mail-ey0-f181.google.com [209.85.215.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4741E0D33 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:02:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eydd26 with SMTP id d26so597494eyd.40 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:02:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=/ROVeGh4mBDSWnXhOh3aeTQQhhWyqON4Z0nlnw8NZg8=; b=CXKKswtQkRe/oHt0WkMt4RnDM8Q9bXSqJviyj/slNxd8Hy+trPDzhuLd/Jv8mGcnC1 +iFJOp8g10wiUZIFQXF23CGuYQ/YwFDNPZf66sxZtZJ/1tGqrSBtsCLGbKaJ/BN9QuhI nkbL2cGlsOaj4g6mfdhuK+D82qmdgawxdXTWk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=T6nkKc+KfQxoMUkKPjPXLFLV5DJzZSyXv/Ofr6Ayy0IPoVEKaBEB6LXX6f/yFHx/x/ aH86tGllbDvyYykXwtVCwCP8byuk2NA25JKMOzWeuzRuSRTx8ppz+5QVSEy1WPG2Mx0F 70AiX4ndWtHAUeHid4vIXTiXqsBcM82MVUJ9A= Received: by 10.213.32.67 with SMTP id b3mr649826ebd.14.1278871366115; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet (196-210-140-126.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.210.140.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm29136849eei.12.2010.07.11.11.02.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:02:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: OT: tool for reading /etc/conf.d/net? Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:59:28 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.34-ck-r1; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <4C35BF45.1050005@oversi.com> In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201007111959.29001.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 6932636b-26f7-4d77-8212-3c5b4111d173 X-Archives-Hash: 264f38665dc1ad431412e41117db77f7 On Sunday 11 July 2010 19:26:17 Kyle Bader wrote: > > Most secured - App i C++ or C. > > Programs written in c++/c are not inherently secure, the programmer > must make use of best practices using secure functions, etc. Programs are not inherently secure, the programmer must make use of best practices using secure functions, etc. Yes, that's better. Much closer to the truth. All languages are insecure, to about the same degree. The only difference is the method of the attack vectors. We use Von Neumann machines. "Inherently secure" is a pipe-dream with those and will never exist. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com