Timeline for Should security-critical code be reused or rewritten?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 10, 2014 at 15:05 | answer | added | Courtney Schwartz | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 9, 2014 at 21:08 | comment | added | ratchet freak | @ChrisCirefice except when the code practices are ripe for backdooring like with heartbleed | |
| Nov 9, 2014 at 3:09 | comment | added | Chris Cirefice | I would disagree about the open-source 'backdoor' commit. In any widely-used open source projects, maintainers are very good at checking out commits before they are actually merged, and would not likely overlook something as critical as inserting a backdoor. I suppose that depends on the complexity of the backdoor (a buffer overflow might be hard to catch in C, for example), but in a general sense it's very likely to be noticed, especially if there are a large number of active contributors to the project. Great question anyway, +1! | |
| Nov 8, 2014 at 13:48 | answer | added | Matija Nalis | timeline score: 15 | |
| Nov 7, 2014 at 16:02 | vote | accept | Hadrien G. | ||
| Nov 7, 2014 at 16:02 | vote | accept | Hadrien G. | ||
| Nov 7, 2014 at 16:02 | |||||
| Nov 7, 2014 at 16:02 | vote | accept | Hadrien G. | ||
| Nov 7, 2014 at 16:02 | |||||
| Nov 7, 2014 at 16:02 | vote | accept | Hadrien G. | ||
| Nov 7, 2014 at 16:02 | |||||
| Nov 7, 2014 at 15:09 | answer | added | Lawtonfogle | timeline score: 12 | |
| Nov 7, 2014 at 11:37 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSecurity/status/530685403221598208 | ||
| Nov 7, 2014 at 10:31 | answer | added | AviD♦ | timeline score: 38 | |
| Nov 7, 2014 at 10:30 | answer | added | Thomas Pornin | timeline score: 66 | |
| Nov 7, 2014 at 10:18 | history | edited | Hadrien G. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Nov 7, 2014 at 10:11 | history | edited | Hadrien G. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 112 characters in body
|
| Nov 7, 2014 at 10:04 | history | asked | Hadrien G. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |