Re: R: [ros-diffs] 01/01: [WINLOGON] Clean up part 2 - Replace the UNICODE_STRING usMessage by a PWSTR pszMessage. - Use the "%02d:%02d:%02d" time format and get rid of the safe string printf because the string will NEVER be longer than 8 charac...

One thing weighs in favour of using C++ over C and that is the increased 
type checking with the former, whereas the latter is decidedly weakly-typed.

That said, C is hardly the maintenance and programming nightmare that it 
is made out to be by many. Proper design and architecture can make life 
so much easier no matter which language one uses.

Naturally, if we're going to get paranoid about languages used, then I'd 
be in favour of using Ada. If it's good enough for avionics and ICBMs, 
then it's good enough for a desktop OS :)

Maya


On 2018/04/05 14:42, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti wrote:
> Some people use the very same argument to write OS’s in Rust. It’s not 
> like it doesn’t make sense, it’s just not necessary.
> 
> If C++ and Rust can compile to safe code, so can C. You just gotta 
> define and abide by sensible safety practices.
> 
> </stating_the_obvious>
> 
> BR,
> 
> Riccardo P. Bestetti
> 
> *Da:* Ros-dev [mailto:[email protected]] *Per conto di *Huw 
> Campbell
> *Inviato:* giovedì 5 aprile 2018 13:35
> *A:* ReactOS Development List <[email protected]>
> *Oggetto:* Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] 01/01: [WINLOGON] Clean up part 2 - 
> Replace the UNICODE_STRING usMessage by a PWSTR pszMessage. - Use the 
> "%02d:%02d:%02d" time format and get rid of the safe string printf 
> because the string will NEVER be longer than 8 charac...
> 
> Hey,
> 
> I'm going to chime in here.
> 
>     If you want to fix this problem: Don't use C! Use C++, C#, Java etc.
>     instead!
> 
> Honestly, this is inane right? ReactOS currently uses C predominantly, 
> but we can't
> 
> use that as an excuse for shitty code which breaks, crashes, or has 
> buffer overflows.
> 
> Security issues are not ok.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Huw
> 
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:53 AM, Thomas Faber <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>     Finding bugs is definitely a valid concern. But there is, of course,
>     a version that addresses both problems:
>     NT_VERIFY(NT_SUCCESS(RtlStringCbPrintfW(...)));
> 
>     This will assert in case the buffer is too small, while still never
>     causing an overflow.
> 
>     We could provide wrappers to require less typing or raise an exception
>     even on release builds, if that's more desirable.
> 
>     Best,
>     Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     On 2018-04-02 20:28, Magnus Johnsson wrote:
>      > Eric, the thing is, buffer overflows don't just crash the program
>     unless
>      > you have some really nifty guard pages, but overwrite other things in
>      > memory. This means an attacker can, in certain situations, use it
>     to create
>      > something that not just crashes, but with a nifty input create an
>     exploit.
>      > Having a 'Oh it will just crash' attitude is 'not the best'.
>      >
>      > 2018-04-02 19:41 GMT+02:00 Eric Kohl <[email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>      >
>      >> Hello Thomas,
>      >>
>      >> you're right, using the run-time size checks are a good way to keep
>      >> application from crashing because of buffer overflows. They'll
>     just keep
>      >> on using corrupt data instead! If you want to fix this problem:
>     Don't
>      >> use C! Use C++, C#, Java etc. instead!
>      >>
>      >> I prefer to see an application crash because of a buffer
>     overflow rather
>      >> than seeing it store truncated phone numbers in a database.
>      >>
>      >> PS: If the timeout is longer than a day, winlogon uses the "%d days"
>      >> format. In the end, a buffer of 10 characters is still large enough.
>      >>
>      >> PPS: I'll keep using the old functions until you remove them
>     from the
>      >> runtime code.
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> Regards
>      >> Eric
>      >>
>      >> Am 02.04.2018 um 14:12 schrieb Thomas Faber:
>      >>> Hey Eric,
>      >>>
>      >>> On 2018-04-02 12:58, Eric Kohl wrote:
>      >>>> -    RtlStringCbPrintfW(strbuf, sizeof(strbuf), L"%d:%d:%d",
>     hours,
>      >>>> minutes, seconds);
>      >>>> +    swprintf(szBuffer, L"%02d:%02d:%02d", iHours, iMinutes,
>     iSeconds);
>      >>>
>      >>> Unfortunately I must disagree with this change.
>      >>>
>      >>> Buffer overflows are a big enough threat that code review and
>      >>> static analysis are not generally considered sufficient to protect
>      >>> against them.
>      >>> So it's best practice for new code to always verify sizes at
>     run-time,
>      >>> and never to use s(w)print.
>      >>>
>      >>> Best regards,
>      >>> Thomas
>      >>>
>      >>> PS: from what I see, iHours can be as large as 1193046, which won't
>      >>>      fit in 2 digits
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ros-dev mailing list
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> 

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev