Index
> Windows > BANNED: memcpy(), CopyMemory(), and RtlCopyMemory()Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author |
|
|
revolution
Microsoft plans to formally banish the popular programming function that's been responsible for an untold number of security vulnerabilities over the years, not just in Windows but in countless other applications based on the C language. Effective later this year, Microsoft will add memcpy(), CopyMemory(), and RtlCopyMemory() to its list of function calls banned under its secure development lifecycle. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb288454.aspx |
|||
20 May 2009, 12:44 |
|
|
vid
WTF? How are they going to copy blocks of memory now?
|
|||
|
20 May 2009, 13:13 |
|
|
revolution
vid: Look at the second link I posted. It has the alternate APIs.
|
|||
|
20 May 2009, 14:52 |
|
|
pal
Hmm, are you sure this is going to happed (soon anyway).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb288454.aspx wrote:
Seems a bit old; two years. |
|||
|
20 May 2009, 15:20 |
|
|
revolution
Just a few days ago in the MSDN blog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2009/05/14/please-join-me-in-welcoming-memcpy-to-the-sdl-rogues-gallery.aspx |
|||
|
20 May 2009, 16:01 |
|
|
drhowarddrfine
This made me laugh:
Quote: Simply replacing a banned function call with a better replacement does not guarantee that the code is secure. It's possible to misuse the replacement function, most commonly by getting the destination buffer size wrong. |
|||
|
20 May 2009, 16:07 |
|
|
pal
Ahh OK, I guess that they have been planning it for some time then.
|
|||
|
20 May 2009, 16:20 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar
vid wrote: WTF? How are they going to copy blocks of memory now? Well, the lazy programmer may still try to put some huge value as destination buffer size just to make thing work and forget about it... *sigh* |
|||
|
20 May 2009, 19:03 |
|
|
bitshifter
No big deal unless you are coding high security industry apps.
I am guilty myself for leaving these holes in my programs. If someone wants to get inside they eventually will crack it. At least it will help make buffer overflows a bit more difficult. _________________ Coding a 3D game engine with fasm is like trying to eat an elephant, you just have to keep focused and take it one 'byte' at a time. |
|||
|
20 May 2009, 19:20 |
|
|
r22
Precious CPU cycles are melting away!
Useless code to be executed ad-nauseum Code: MOV reg,[DST_LENGTH] CMP reg,[SRC_LENGTH] JB .DONT_WORRY_MICROSOFT_WUVS_YOU |
|||
|
20 May 2009, 19:31 |
|
|
vid
revolution: second link seems only have functions that are already banned. But now I found answer in second link.
Tomasz: I support it fully for string functions, but memcpy()? I think this is a bit overkill, but I agree it is understandable in case of MS. |
|||
|
20 May 2009, 21:29 |
|
|
Borsuc
This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a LOOOONG while
First I thought it was a prank, can't believe it's actually real. It makes as much sense as copying the function arguments twice "for consistency reasons" lololol. _________________ Previously known as The_Grey_Beast |
|||
|
21 May 2009, 23:50 |
|
|
revolution
I think they (MS) are realising that the programmers don't know how to properly use the function. So, rather trying to change the programmers habits, they thought it would be easier to change the function. And I suspect they are right, changing a programmers habits can be very hard to do. Right tom?
 The extra parameter kind of encourages the programmer to think about the size of the destination. However if a programmer decides to misuse it then of course this change will make no difference. |
|||
|
22 May 2009, 00:29 |
|
|
drhowarddrfine
I agree with revolution but I also wonder if MS is trying to protect people from themselves. They have enough issues. It's like banning loops or movs in asm cause they can runaway without a proper counter. Stupid.
However, the C library has new functions for copying strings that require definition of the string length but no one has banned the old use. |
|||
|
22 May 2009, 03:10 |
|
|
sinsi
Quote: Developers who want to be SDL compliant will instead have to replace memcpy() functions with memcpy_s Not totally banned, just 'deprecated'. Anyway, what do we care? I don't use any C library functions. |
|||
|
22 May 2009, 03:51 |
|
|
Borsuc
CopyMemory is not a C function.
|
|||
|
23 May 2009, 22:57 |
|
|
bitRAKE
My processor has REP MOVSB, so I use it where needed and memory sections are known not to overlap.
Copying massive blocks of memory has never been an algorithmically sound practice. Imagine an editor which completely copied the text every time a character was inserted/deleted - bad design unless the maximum number of characters is fairly small. MS's approach is the exact opposite of education and supports the dumbing down of the programmer - just a sick hierarchy of protocols with all the wrong reasons. |
|||
|
23 May 2009, 23:18 |
|
|
pelaillo
Quote:
They already succeed in dumbing down the computer users. |
|||
|
26 May 2009, 18:03 |
|
|
comrade
That's bad? Take a look at Apple kicking their ass.
|
|||
|
27 May 2009, 07:42 |
|
| Goto page 1, 2 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|