From xemacs-m  Tue Feb 18 09:45:30 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA27920
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:45:28 -0600 (CST)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQcdlf09144; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:45:28 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:45:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QQcdlf09144.199702181545@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Safe elisp functions?
In-Reply-To: <rjeneemshe.fsf@zuse.dina.kvl.dk>
References: <199702172311.PAA23394@newman>
	<m2zpx356pc.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<199702172345.PAA23641@newman>
	<m2wws755ux.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<rjeneemshe.fsf@zuse.dina.kvl.dk>

Per Abrahamsen writes:
 > 
 > Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:
 > 
 > > We have so many abort()s sprinkled
 > > around the code that I don't trust any of it.
 > 
 > Is there any security concerns with abort?  I'd have thought that was
 > one of the most trustworthy functions in the C library.

The abort()s signify a paranoia about data corruption, buffer
overruns, etc. and this kind of corruption is at the heart of
many of the recent CERT advisories.  So all those abort()s
sprinkled about to catch corruption are good reason to be
nervous.

