[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs Lisp's future
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs Lisp's future |
Date: |
Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:15:20 -0400 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> I'd like to know how it is that "raw bytes" have security implications.
> Are there programs that make assumptions about the contents of strings?
> That seems like bad design.
Yes, they do, and no, it's poor implementation, not bad design --
they're conforming to standards that say that string contents will
have a specific form and are unfortunately imperfectly protected from
invalid input by their I/O modules (for example, the \201 bug in Emacs
itself).
...If that program is a
spam/virus checker,...
Do people write spam/virus checkers using Guile?
This issue is specifically about Guile.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/10/05
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Richard Stallman, 2014/10/05
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/10/05
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Richard Stallman, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2014/10/10
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/10/06