[cap-talk] Midori in The Register

[Mark Miller]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap at eros-os.com>wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 13:46 +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap at eros-os.com>
> wrote:
> > > That is: managed code cannot guarantee security, but type-unsafe code
> > > (which is not quite the same as unmanaged code) does guarantee the
> > > absence of security.
> >
> > I don't believe that's true. It may make it harder, but I don't see
> > why I could not get effective "type-safety" in a non-type-safe
> > language. For example, the work I've been doing in OpenSSL provides
> > type checking. It can be circumvented, but if the coder does not go
> > out of his way to do so, the code is effectively type-safe.
>
> Then this code is not type-unsafe, is it?


If I understand what Ben means by
> It can be *circumvented*, but if the coder does not go
> out of his way to do so, the code is *effectively* type-safe.
[emphasis added]
then I'd classify it as type unsafe.

-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

Cheers,
--MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/attachments/20080806/faab571a/attachment.html