[zild3d]

Why do you claim C++ relates to poor security? OSX and iOS are primarily C, C++, and assembly, (objective C at the higher levels). And linux of course is C and assembly.

Are you saying all of the major operating systems have poor security because they use "vulnerable" languages?

[adrianN]

Memory corruption is the most common error that leads to vulnerabilities.

[alkonaut]

> Are you saying all of the major operating systems have poor security because they use "vulnerable" languages?

Absolutely.

[JimDabell]

Does this include OpenBSD?

[alkonaut]

Is it a program written by humans and have parts that accept user input or network input? then yes.

[JimDabell]

By that definition, pretty much all software has "poor security" regardless of language. I don't think your definition of "poor security" is proportionate or useful.

[alkonaut]

> By that definition, pretty much all software has "poor security" regardless of language.

My definition of "poor" is that it must have a babysitter to maintain and patch it. Whether or not this is the case depends on the attack surface, which of course depends on the complexity of what it does. A system that has no attack surface can be very buggy without having poor security. But an internet connected machine with modern windows/posix OS that does some useful work will likely need a security patch already within the first couple of years - and that I consider pretty poor.

[codedokode]

I think C++ is very compicated, it is difficult to write memory-, thread- and exception-safe program in it and it is easy to make a mistake that can be exploited.

[panzer_wyrm]

They are not secure. They are locked down.