(1022 because 1023, 1024, and 1025 byte over-length data was included in the test package. Or better, the programmers have independent testers test with incorrect length data (among other things, of course).īut there still will be those cases where data exactly 1022 bytes too long somehow gets through the validation routines. Really good programmers know they can fall into that trap and write tests that provide some incorrect length data. It's too easy see length checking code as doing what you want rather than what it actually does (It's so easy to be one byte off.), or assuming that a length check has already been performed in another part of the code, etc. It is much more important to make sure it cannot be used to so something you did not intend.Īctually, buffer overrun problems are probably going to be around forever. There are so many other things that need to be considered to write a reliable, error resistant program - not just one that appears to do what you want. These days many people think being a programmer means being able to write code that will do some task. ![]() Of course, the more powerful and more flexible you make a program, the easier it is to find and exploit weaknesses. But also the programmer in the next office - who may not be as talented or detail oriented as they are. Software developers need to trust no one. Bug:485216 - dev-python/pytimerfd-1.2 - Python bindings for the Linux. I guess it is a mindset that people have or do not have. Bug:399339 - Request for ebuild of Wii Backup Fusion status:UNCONFIRMED. A software or system designer should (among many other things) be thinking "how can this piece of code be used maliciously?" Then take steps to mitigate that vulnerability. The Log4J exploit currently causing concerns is a case of lack of forethought. After it was discovered, one would think it would get fixed and never happen again. ![]() I am not sure how something like buffer overrun continued for so long. ![]() If each of the 88 notes is individually tested and tuned, it makes no difference how you combine the notes to create a song, the piano (though possibly not the pianist) will always be correct. Then, combining them to provide the services needed, minimizes any errors. This enhances the ability to get each of those small "steps" well tested. However using modular coding techniques and subroutines to provide specific functions allows for capsulation of functionality. NO question that software bugs are inevitable as long as humans are involved in the coding (not sure how long before AI does it all).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |