• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Xcode/gcc help in enforcing secure coding?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Xcode/gcc help in enforcing secure coding?


  • Subject: Re: Xcode/gcc help in enforcing secure coding?
  • From: Kent Karlsson <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:54:14 -0700

It would be really nice with a -Wsecurity or similar. In my experience, most people
(including me) reacts better to a compiler warning than looking up what is worth
avoiding. What happened at my work when we increased the number of warnings
was that initially we had loads of warnings pouring into the codebase, but pretty
soon people adapted and avoided those pitfalls for all new code.


Warnings are a really good educational system when not ignored, so I think the
best education possible would be the warnings and a really good page in the
documentation listing the reason and why to avoid them of all those warnings.


I'm not saying that I think all warnings are good, but most are important and some
are crucial.


-- kent

On 2006 aug 15, at 08.32, John C. Daub wrote:

on 8/15/06 3:44 AM, Steve Checkoway at email@hidden wrote:

Apple, if you're listening, please, PLEASE do not mark standard
library functions deprecated that really aren't. I'm understand the
desire for some of the more dangerous functions but strlen is _not_
deprecated and microsoft pretending that it is is simply stupid. It's
very annoying to use a standard function only to find that other
people on the project using Windows cannot build because MS has
decided to remove/rename/deprecate the function.

Well, they sorta are depreciated in the sense that they are security problems and there are better alternatives.

But this is why in my original request I thought it'd be nice for it to be
some sort of optional gcc warning. So using something like the gcc
attributes may not be the right way to go since I don't believe you could
directly control that as a compiler option. I'd rather the compiler know
about it and if the option to emit a warning is on to do so. Thus those of
us that care about removing/preventing all/any uses in our code can use the
warning and care, and those that want to still use them can.


I don't think they should be removed, but part of the point of a compiler is
to help us catch mistakes earlier in the development process. So if it could
help here, great.


--
John C. Daub }:-)>=
<mailto:email@hidden> <http://www.hsoi.com/>
"I shoot back." -- Ted Nugent



 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden

_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden
References: 
 >Re: Xcode/gcc help in enforcing secure coding? (From: "John C. Daub" <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Xcode/gcc help in enforcing secure coding?
  • Next by Date: Re: Xcode/gcc help in enforcing secure coding?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Xcode/gcc help in enforcing secure coding?
  • Next by thread: Re: Xcode/gcc help in enforcing secure coding?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread