[cap-talk] Midori in The Register

[Ben Laurie]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap at eros-os.com> wrote:
> 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.

In the past you have told me I must not call what I am doing in C
type-safety. That is my point.