[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: propolice

> (I guess my antipathy to "bolt-on" security is well known. Didn't we have an
> argument about this about a year ago? At the time you rejected putting
> buffer-overflow protection into a compiler because "it would break too
> much". Fine, but why add an insecure/ineffective feature if you've changed
> your mind?)

Nothing at the time was sufficient to the task.

Go read the damn propolice paper, and see what existed at the time.

I'll give you a hint:

	All the world is an i386.