In some mail from Jim Harrison, sie said: > > ..and similar statements can be made for Basic (pickyourflavor) as well. > This argument proves my point that there is no such thing as a truly > "secure" language; it's entirely dependent on the dev skills. I disagree. But then the above could be taken to be just flame-bait. In functional programming languages (think 4GLs like prolog), rather than functional programming languages (2 and 3GL - C/Pascal/perl/etc), the ability of a programmer to do something that exposes a security problem is greatly diminished (if we exclude "shell escapes", etc.) Where do 9 out of 10 security problems with applications arise from? Dealing poorly with externally supplied input. This is the crux of nearly *all* PHP security bugs. Maybe our problem is that PHP, perl, etc, are all built on top of C and in such a manner that the origin and trustworthiness of data is lost and can no longer be delt with in an appropriate fashion. So maybe there isn't a "secure" functional language yet but I can't see why we can't develop one. Darren
