Nmap Security Scanner
*Intro
*Ref Guide
*Install Guide
*Download
*Changelog
*Book
*Docs
Security Lists
*Nmap Hackers
*Nmap Dev
*Bugtraq
*Full Disclosure
*Pen Test
*Basics
*More
Security Tools
*Pass crackers
*Sniffers
*Vuln Scanners
*Web scanners
*Wireless
*Exploitation
*Packet crafters
*More
Site News
Site Search:
Exploit World
Advertising
About/Contact
Credits
Sponsors:




bugtraq logo Bugtraq mailing list archives

Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug
From: ben () ALGROUP CO UK (Ben Laurie)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 11:51:29 +0100


David Schwartz wrote:
        How do you think the compiler would interpret the following:

MyString Foo="test";

        It would _have_ to call a constructor. There is no other way to make a
'MyString'. So your distinction is a distinction without a difference.

That's my point. MyString requires a call to a constructor. An int
doesn't. That's the difference.

        No you cannnot know that _in_general_. The code 'int
MyString::StringCount=0;' and the code 'MyString Foo="test"' are on an equal
level -- both construct global objects and initialize them to sane states.
So in general, you can't know which will occur first.

No, we know that 'int MyString::StringCount=0;' is done first, because
it needs no run-time initialisation.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686| Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org/
and Technical Director|Email: ben () algroup co uk |
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |Apache-SSL author     http://www.apache-ssl.org/
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache/

WE'RE RECRUITING! http://www.aldigital.co.uk/recruit/



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]