Poorly written software is at the root of all of our securityproblems

You can find the claim in the subject line as the top-rated risk at

http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann...sks08.html#220

I found that link from the useful (moderated) newsgroup comp.risks.

I found my way to that newsgroup at the suggestion of a former
government official who probably got tired of my repeated comments
about US incompetence and laziness with regard to information
security.

How important you think the integrity of the Internet (and the
financial system) should be may be culturally-dependent.

If you live in the gunslinger mentality of so much of the former
Warsaw pact, the solution to any security problem might well be
another round of vodka shots.

Russia, for example, is ranked 117 on the world corruption audit

http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm

The country I have repeatedly slighted by implication is well up the
list, not so very far below, say, Costa Rica.

The United States has nothing to brag about in that department, as it
is almost at the end of the list of First World countries, just two
slots below the UK.

In any case, software integrity is a *very* big problem. If you are
trying to argue otherwise, my guess is that you don't think integrity
is all that important.

Robert.

On Feb 1, 7:23*am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
<s.bez_sp...@remove.this.informa.and.that.pl> wrote:
> *> [Robert Myers written nonsense snipped]
>
> Yet another off-topic post by RM (off-topic on both groups he crossposted).
> Yet, He just wrote, he will not continue the discussion, yet he
> continues it. How predictable...
>
> Then the post is filled with rambling about buch of unrelated things,
> peppered with some poor attempts at ad hominem, all intermixed with
> demonstration with very poor understanding of the matter he tries to
> discuss. Whether he tries to discuss realities of former Warsaw Pact
> countries, software security, software integrity, risk estimation, his
> jedgement shows similar level of cluelessness.
>
> (Besides, sorry Mr. Myers, i'm not Russian, so wrong shot, troll)
>
>
First of all, cowboy, you decided to resurrect this topic in a
completely unrelated thread about Intel's compiler. So long as the
discussion began in these groups, that's where the discussion should
end.

Secondly, it is clear from the logic of my post that I did not believe
you to be Russian, only from a former Warsaw Pact country whose
position on the corruption list I located a bit below Costa Rica
(which I am sure must produce *some* of its foreign exchange through
legal means with unlaundered cash).

Thirdly, I care no more what you think of me than what Prof.
Redelmeier thinks of me. The fact that many misuse statistics and
draw false conclusions from them the way you do is no defense for
you. You don't understand what you are doing and you defend it by
heaping up misinformation and abuse.

Fourthly, the proper manner of formal address is Dr. Myers.

Robert.

In cshipc Robert Myers <> wrote in part:
> Fourthly, the proper manner of formal address is Dr. Myers.

Touchy, touchy. I'm presuming PhD 'cuz MDs have little knowledge
of fluid dynamics. Although there are some interesting problems
around shear minimization for heart valves and arterial grafts.

-- Robert R


>

Robert Myers wrote:
> On Feb 1, 7:23 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> <s.bez_sp...@remove.this.informa.and.that.pl> wrote:
>> > [Robert Myers written nonsense snipped]
>>
>> Yet another off-topic post by RM (off-topic on both groups he crossposted).
>> Yet, He just wrote, he will not continue the discussion, yet he
>> continues it. How predictable...
>>
>> Then the post is filled with rambling about buch of unrelated things,
>> peppered with some poor attempts at ad hominem, all intermixed with
>> demonstration with very poor understanding of the matter he tries to
>> discuss. Whether he tries to discuss realities of former Warsaw Pact
>> countries, software security, software integrity, risk estimation, his
>> jedgement shows similar level of cluelessness.
>>
>> (Besides, sorry Mr. Myers, i'm not Russian, so wrong shot, troll)
>>
>>
> First of all, cowboy, you decided to resurrect this topic in a
> completely unrelated thread about Intel's compiler. So long as the
> discussion began in these groups, that's where the discussion should
> end.
>
Actually, this is far enough off any relation to Intel that moving the
discussion with a "Followups-To" somewhere else would be appropriate. Don't take
that as an endorsement of (or disagreement with) Mr Kaliszewski's other points,
but on the suggestion that this is no longer relevant to Intel, I believe he is
right.

On Feb 2, 1:38*pm, Robert Redelmeier <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
> In cshipc Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>
> > Fourthly, the proper manner of formal address is Dr. Myers.
>
> Touchy, touchy. *I'm presuming PhD 'cuz MDs have little knowledge
> of fluid dynamics. *Although there are some interesting problems
> around shear minimization for heart valves and arterial grafts.
>
Formal address where informal address is commonly used is hostile.
That being the case, I'm going to insist on the socially-correct
honorific.

Had you been paying attention, you'd know a lot about my educational
background.

Robert.

On Feb 2, 2:03*pm, Bill Davidsen <david...@tmr.com> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 7:23 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> > <s.bez_sp...@remove.this.informa.and.that.pl> wrote:
> >> *> [Robert Myers written nonsense snipped]
>
> >> Yet another off-topic post by RM (off-topic on both groups he crossposted).
> >> Yet, He just wrote, he will not continue the discussion, yet he
> >> continues it. How predictable...
>
> >> Then the post is filled with rambling about buch of unrelated things,
> >> peppered with some poor attempts at ad hominem, all intermixed with
> >> demonstration with very poor understanding of the matter he tries to
> >> discuss. Whether he tries to discuss realities of former Warsaw Pact
> >> countries, software security, software integrity, risk estimation, his
> >> jedgement shows similar level of cluelessness.
>
> >> (Besides, sorry Mr. Myers, i'm not Russian, so wrong shot, troll)
>
> > First of all, cowboy, you decided to resurrect this topic in a
> > completely unrelated thread about Intel's compiler. *So long as the
> > discussion began in these groups, that's where the discussion should
> > end.
>
> Actually, this is far enough off any relation to Intel that moving the
> discussion with a "Followups-To" somewhere else would be appropriate. Don't take
> that as an endorsement of (or disagreement with) Mr Kaliszewski's other points,
> but on the suggestion that this is no longer relevant to Intel, I believehe is
> right.

I beg to differ. The material is no further away from Intel systems
than lawsuits against Intel. Both issues may (or may not) materially
affect users of Intel systems. Of the two issues, poorly-written
software is much more likely to have an impact on users of Intel
products and IBM-compatible computers--where the problem was
practically invented because of a hardware monoculture. If you can't
follow the logic, I'll mail you a diagram.

If you address me in a group, you may expect that I will respond to
you there.

Robert.