Community Comments To Security Absurdity Article

An anonymous reader writes, "Earlier this year Noam Eppel's Security Absurdity article generated much debate in the Information Security community (covered on Slashdot at the time). He claimed that we are currently witnessing a 'profound failure' in security. Now the author has posted a follow-up highlighting some of the community comments prompted by the article, titled 'Feedback to Security Absurdity Article — the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.'"

Comments

C is the Suxor, Re:Wrong approch

[Erris]

The biggest problem is C and all the other non-typesafe languages. Safe languages simply trade a certain amount of performance for the impossibility of buffer overflows, underflows, stack 'smashing', heap corruption, double-free's, pointer arithmetic errors, and all of the other low-level attacks. Everything at that level is toast in Java or in "managed" C# for instance.

Is it true that OpenBSD was written in C# and that's why it's so secure? I had no idea they had ported C# outside M$OS and i386 but there it is on sixteen different hardware platforms. Here I was thinking that Steve Balmer would have trouble naming more than two hardware platforms and would get them wrong, "Intel and AMD" - bzzzt, "Thanks for playing Steve!" C is so terrible to work with, it must be the root of all computer evil that does not exist outside the Windoze world.