Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!uflorida!haven!umbc3!cs374124
From: cs374124@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Clark "Crash" Culligan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Computer (in)security
Summary: The Concept of a Secure Language
Message-ID: <1359@umbc3.UMD.EDU>
Date: 21 Nov 88 20:26:17 GMT
References: <8811171507.AA08404@jade.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: cs374124@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Clark "Crash" Culligan)
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Lines: 48

In article <8811171507.AA08404@jade.berkeley.edu> ZMLEB@SCFVM.BITNET (Lee Brotzman) writes:
>
>Was anyone watching either the Today Show on NBC or Good Morning
>America in ABC between 7:30 and 8:30 earlier this week (probably
>Monday)?  Let me explain why.  My parents caught someone on those talk
>segments that was talking about the Computerized Voting Booths.
>Aparently, he was saying that because they were written in Forth they
>could be tampered with, because Forth is an unsecure language.

   (stuff fromthe middle deleted)

>   I'm posting this is to try to raise another topic of discussion.
>Is there such a thing as a "secure" programming language, or can only
>programs themselves be thought of as secure?  What techniques can be used
>to write secure programs in any language, especially Forth?

   Language "security" I think has something to do with the
error-trapping and/or memory protection of a program being executed. A
"secure" language will trap errors that will trash variable memory, tear
through program memory, etc.
   In that regard, Forth is unsecure. Then again, Forth is MEANT to be a
wide-open, fully changeable language. Rarely have I seen a FORTH program
not dip into program memory to change pointers to other words around.
Why, the very act of changing the value of a variable involves taking
the memory location and writing a new value to it.
   Forth is not a language for idiots, because Forth has no tolerance
for idiocy.

   On the other hand, the security THEY'RE talking about is
tamperability. How tamper-proof a program is depends on how it's
written. A Forth system could be very secure, for instance, if you use
specially coded words (so they couldn't be perniciously executed without
a special book), and the stack space should be reduced to make any
on-the-spot changes impossible without involving a stack-heap collision.
I'm not studying Forth officially (it's more of a hobby), but that's the
way I'd start write-protecting the language.

   On the third hand, we're talking about voting booths here. That means
we're talking about officials, probably government officials, and THAT
means government officials working with Forth. Stick to Cobol, guys.
Leave the Forth programming to the experts...

                                              -David Wood
                                              -Lowly Student, UMBC

===================================================================
= "Did YOU water your grandmother today?" = Strangeness On Demand =
===================================================================