Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: sscanf error checking Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:28:21 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <77a15075-1f22-405c-a896-061dda988473@googlegroups.com> <9fc98e35-35c8-49e5-b733-6868ca58c459@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2210dc8e98a3c302beae7e7a325c3760"; logging-data="11406"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/gBdQ16lNquqMzm3XV+wD" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:rtYv4rS85aCl/ctZ1XVHUarR6iM= sha1:+SWUGYaDPgYgcHOfm5+0pLMpets= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:99587 Malcolm McLean writes: > On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 7:25:50 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote: >> supercat@casperkitty.com writes: >> > On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 2:52:04 PM UTC-6, robert...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> IMO, the *scanf() and ato*() functions are pretty much of no use >> >> outside of toy problems, the lack of meaningful error handling being >> >> the biggest issue. YMMV. >> > >> > Many programs are intended only for use upon validated input. >> >> Many programs are poorly written. That's often why malware is able >> to work. >> > Many programs are given to the user in source code form, and he is > expected to have the skills to use a C compiler to generate an > executable and run it. Most aren't. > So there's not much point in putting in security measures. Huh? -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"