On 1/20/21 1:46 PM, Axel Wagner wrote:
> My personal projection is that security will mostly be unaffected (/I don't
> know of many security issues in the past that were related to Go type safety
> or
> lack thereof/), if it *is* affected, the effect will be positive and that
> type-safety will i
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:25 PM Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> It has been stated in a thread that there have never been any type safety
> related security issues.
I assume you are referring to what I said and I'd just like to point out
that I never made such claims. I said two things:
I assume panic
On 1/20/21 12:27 PM, Axel Wagner wrote:
>
> Language design is a trade-off and there is no such thing as a perfect
> type-system. Go has decided that it doesn't want to occupy the "most
> type-safety
> possible" spot in the language design space.
>
> I don't think it is true that anyone is "downpl
>> I don't understand what you are trying to say or achieve. But, to be clear:
>> 1. Yes, Go does intentionally not attempt to build a type-system which >>
excludes as many bugs as possible statically.
>> 2. Yes, there is a possibility that Go software has security bugs that could
(or would) have b
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:47 PM Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> I know Go is far from plagued by these issues and I certainly wouldn't
> want to
> trade Gos simplicity away. However, there seems to be a playing down of
> null
> pointers and type safety issue potential.
>
I don't understand what you are
I know Go is far from plagued by these issues and I certainly wouldn't want to
trade Gos simplicity away. However, there seems to be a playing down of null
pointers and type safety issue potential.
Is this not a type safety issue?
"https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2019-14809/";
and obviously n
