Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!ucbvax!UICVMC.BITNET!UWC6NTG
From: UWC6NTG@UICVMC.BITNET (Nicholas Geovanis 312-996-0590)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <8811221933.AA00498@jade.berkeley.edu>
Date: 21 Nov 88 16:08:33 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: Forth Interest Group International List <FIGI-L%SCFVM.bitnet@jade.berkeley.edu>
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 11

Re: FORTH Security

   I think that FORTH is not inherently less secure than most languages.
Nevertheless, the "FORTH design philosophy" seems to promote a freewheeling
attitude towards memory modification. If easy extensibility and built-in
word replacement are considered advantages of FORTH implementations, then
they can also be considered disadvantages from the standpoint of integrity.
Obviously, there are many methods for shoring-up these disadvantages, but
I am curious what safeguards FORTH professionals actually implement.
                              Nick G.
                              Sys. Prog.-U. of Ill. ACC, Chicago