• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
• From: Tyler Close <tyler@w...>
• Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:03:44 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3F7DC8BA.10001@d...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9ED55@h...> <E1A5UmM-0002vn-00@canteen> <3F7DC8BA.10001@d...>

On Friday 03 October 2003 15:06, Rich Salz wrote:
> > Are you saying it doesn't make sense to ask why ASN.1 has been
> > vulnerable to long-lived bugs? We are not talking about just one
> > bug in just one implementation.
>
> In every case so far, it's been untested code paths.  As others have
> said, that's not ASN1/[BDPX]ER's fault.

What if the design of ASN1/[BDPX]ER yields many more code paths
than other designs? Is that a design flaw?

Tyler

-- 
The union of REST and capability-based security:
http://www.waterken.com/dev/Web/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>

• References:
  • RE: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
    • From: Tyler Close <tyler@w...>
  • Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
• Next by Date: Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
• Previous by thread: Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
• Next by thread: Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread