[cap-talk] Midori in The Register

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:40 +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:28 PM, 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?
> 
> Well, since you took me to task for calling it type-safe, I must
> conclude that it is.

Ben: read it again. I was agreeing with you.