[148767] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: [Cryptography] RSA is dead.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tom Mitchell)
Fri Dec 27 12:03:39 2013
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <1388094501.17919.63800897.14FBDCDD@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 22:56:59 -0800
From: Tom Mitchell <mitch@niftyegg.com>
To: "cryptography@metzdowd.com" <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
Errors-To: cryptography-bounces+crypto.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@metzdowd.com
In code reviews...
What is the state of folding editors (or am I showing my age)?
Do they help anyone?
What are the risks of shared objects that today are "safe" and
tomorrow unsafe in a specific use context.
What are the risks of compilers with intrinsic functions where
code is inserted in the binary in some cases code that one
might expect to be in a shared object. i.e. Compilers and
link editors can remove the function call and copy code into
the object removing the ability of a bug fix via shared object.
What caller conventions are safe?
I ask because code review has visibility to perhaps the top 5% of the
problem space
in a single program.
What tools and environments have strong "deprecation" semantics that can
shut down bad code and "force" or "trigger" an update effectively.
--
T o m M i t c h e l l
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
