Skip to Content [alt-c]
In reply to Comment by Reader DES
If you sincerely believe that rewriting [...] software in a memory-safe language would make it inherently more secure [...]
(emphasis mine)
Ooh, that's a nice strawman you've got there.
The author wrote:
To provide a meaningful improvement to security without rewriting in a memory-safe language, Apache would need to [...]
Which doesn't state that rewriting is the only thing needed to make it more secure. You're misrepresenting his "rewriting is one possible necessary condition, but I do not state whether it is a sufficient one" to "rewriting is one possible necessary and sufficient condition to making the software safer".
Not sure whether to attribute this to malice or accidental (or emotion-influenced) lack of reading comprehension.
Given the history of tactics employed by pro-systemd (and to be fair, anti-systemd) folks, it's getting harder to give the benefit of doubt. But I (and others, I hope) should strive to keep the discussion free of fame wars and intellectual dishonesty, right?
Reply
Your comment will be public. To contact me privately, email me. Please keep your comment polite, on-topic, and comprehensible. Your comment may be held for moderation before being published.
Your Name: (Optional; will be published)
Your Email Address: (Optional; will not be published)
Your Website: (Optional; will be published)
>
monospaced
Post a Reply
Your comment will be public. To contact me privately, email me. Please keep your comment polite, on-topic, and comprehensible. Your comment may be held for moderation before being published.