.NET is not secure
in [Firewalls]
|
From: Duane Arnold "Do forget about on 20 Aug 2006 13:39 > > Blah blah... in contrary to you I understand very well where .NET is > broken by implementation, and even where it's broken by design. Blah, blah back to you as you're no authority on anything other than being some kind of a blabber mouth *clown*. Duane :(
From: Sebastian Gottschalk on 20 Aug 2006 13:57 Duane Arnold wrote: >> >> Blah blah... in contrary to you I understand very well where .NET is >> broken by implementation, and even where it's broken by design. > > Blah, blah back to you as you're no authority on anything other than > being some kind of a blabber mouth *clown*. One can say "I don't want to discuss it, because I like being ignorant" way smoother. You brought up using .NET for security, now defend against the known vulnerabilities!
From: Duane Arnold "Do forget about on 20 Aug 2006 14:07 Go stand in the corner Sebastian and shut the hell up if that's possible for you. Duane :(
From: Volker Birk on 20 Aug 2006 14:11 Sebastian Gottschalk <seppi(a)seppig.de> wrote: > Blah blah... in contrary to you I understand very well where .NET is > broken by implementation, and even where it's broken by design. Please explain. What is broken in the design of .NET? What is broken in the implementation of .NET? > hint: verification of pointer semantics on 'unsafe' code Please explain. > hint: cross-reference object modification Please explain. Yours, VB. -- Viel schlimmer als die Implementation von PHP ist jedoch das Design. Rudolf Polzer in de.comp.security.misc
From: Volker Birk on 20 Aug 2006 14:18
Sebastian Gottschalk <seppi(a)seppig.de> wrote: > You brought up using .NET for security, now defend against > the known vulnerabilities! What are those vulnerabilities? Yours, VB. -- Viel schlimmer als die Implementation von PHP ist jedoch das Design. Rudolf Polzer in de.comp.security.misc |