Re: Is this list still active?

>We all know how to make secure code because we've got organisations like 
>OpenBSD and Wind River showing everyone how it's done. It's a painstaking, 
>monastic review process that takes top people. I know that some organisations 
>have equivalent inquisitional groups for when they can't afford to have their 
>code blow up in their clients face but in everyday code development there's 
>no such rigour.

I don't quite share your optimism, and neither does the OpenBSD team.
Not anymore, that is.  I think we all remember how OpenBSD started
with the ideal of core OS with well scrutinized code.  After a while
they've radically extended their approach to include mechanisms to
make it harder to exploit many classes of bugs.

I think it's a folly to assume that it is possible to write bug free
code; and security bugs are not exception.  That's why systems must be
designed such that they don't fail completely when a bug hits.

>Yeah, I like to think of code review in these terms; inquisition, monastic. 
>Perhaps these guys should wear robes :) Our code serves important and 
>sometimes critical social function, we don't just owe it to our shareholders 
>to produce good code, we contribute to the infrastructure of society.

Oh, absolutely, but code review should be the last step in a lengthy,
integrated, security process.  If code review is your only security
measure and if "secure programming" your only tool, then you are
in trouble.

Casper