Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end
From: Seima Rao <seimarao@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Formulating Security in Programming Languages
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:49:53 +0530
Organization: Compilers Central
Lines: 32
Sender: news@iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <15-01-014@comp.compilers>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1421421558 70231 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (16 Jan 2015 15:19:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:19:18 +0000 (UTC)
Keywords: question
Posted-Date: 16 Jan 2015 10:19:18 EST
X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1471

Hi,

    I came up with this notation in stating the goal of security in
programming languages:

    Programming Language Construct = Syntax + Semantics + Side Effect.

    N# semantics N# syntax = Syntax + Semantics + Side Effects

   Security = N# semantics N# syntax - Side Effects

    I will explain via a C example:

    N# (malloc-semantics) N# (malloc-syntax, free-opt-syntax) = Memory
Allocation + Memory Deallocation + Memory Leak

    In the above, the LHS says, apply the combined syntaxes of malloc
and optional-free to the semantics of malloc. The result is that
Memory Leak is a side effect. So, the goal of security is to remove
Memory Leaks.

   Does the approach specified in the above paragraphs occur to you as
brute force esp when generalizing over the entire grammar(small &
manageable) if not the semantics(the whole large LRM)?

   Is anyone interested in this topic ?

   Are there any other formal approaches to investigating security in
Programming Languages?

Sincerely,
Seima Rao.