From: GP lisper
Subject: Ruby Poof
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrngkijsm.tn8.spambait@phoenix.clouddancer.com>
Laurent Gaffie discovered that Ruby did not properly check for memory
allocation failures. (CVE-2008-3443)
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

From: Dimiter "malkia" Stanev
Subject: Re: Ruby Poof
Date: 
Message-ID: <gibupt$nbd$1@malkia.motzarella.org>
GP lisper wrote:
> Laurent Gaffie discovered that Ruby did not properly check for memory
> allocation failures. (CVE-2008-3443)
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

That's not really Ruby, just it's 1.8 "C" implementation. Does it affect 
the other Ruby implementations?
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: Ruby Poof
Date: 
Message-ID: <20090102183950.51@gmail.com>
On 2008-12-17, Dimiter "malkia" Stanev <······@mac.com> wrote:
> GP lisper wrote:
>> Laurent Gaffie discovered that Ruby did not properly check for memory
>> allocation failures. (CVE-2008-3443)
>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
> That's not really Ruby, just it's 1.8 "C" implementation. Does it affect 
> the other Ruby implementations?

But the 1.8 C source code is the document which defines the language.
From: Dimiter "malkia" Stanev
Subject: Re: Ruby Poof
Date: 
Message-ID: <gic806$sr3$1@malkia.motzarella.org>
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2008-12-17, Dimiter "malkia" Stanev <······@mac.com> wrote:
>> GP lisper wrote:
>>> Laurent Gaffie discovered that Ruby did not properly check for memory
>>> allocation failures. (CVE-2008-3443)
>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>> That's not really Ruby, just it's 1.8 "C" implementation. Does it affect 
>> the other Ruby implementations?
> 
> But the 1.8 C source code is the document which defines the language.

If the ruby guys were smart enough to write their runtime in OCaml 
instead of "C" this would've never happened.
From: Slobodan Blazeski
Subject: Re: Ruby Poof
Date: 
Message-ID: <28d5d0ff-b712-4f8e-8259-80a6248fed09@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 18, 2:11 am, "Dimiter \"malkia\" Stanev" <······@mac.com>
wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > On 2008-12-17, Dimiter "malkia" Stanev <······@mac.com> wrote:
> >> GP lisper wrote:
> >>> Laurent Gaffie discovered that Ruby did not properly check for memory
> >>> allocation failures. (CVE-2008-3443)
> >>> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
> >> That's not really Ruby, just it's 1.8 "C" implementation. Does it affect
> >> the other Ruby implementations?
>
> > But the 1.8 C source code is the document which defines the language.
>
> If the ruby guys were smart enough to write their runtime in OCaml
> instead of "C" this would've never happened.

And how many people know OCaml and are willing to help debug OCaml
code?

bobi
From: Dimiter "malkia" Stanev
Subject: Re: Ruby Poof
Date: 
Message-ID: <gie5p2$4ng$1@malkia.motzarella.org>
Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2:11 am, "Dimiter \"malkia\" Stanev" <······@mac.com>
> wrote:
>> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2008-12-17, Dimiter "malkia" Stanev <······@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> GP lisper wrote:
>>>>> Laurent Gaffie discovered that Ruby did not properly check for memory
>>>>> allocation failures. (CVE-2008-3443)
>>>>> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
>>>> That's not really Ruby, just it's 1.8 "C" implementation. Does it affect
>>>> the other Ruby implementations?
>>> But the 1.8 C source code is the document which defines the language.
>> If the ruby guys were smart enough to write their runtime in OCaml
>> instead of "C" this would've never happened.
> 
> And how many people know OCaml and are willing to help debug OCaml
> code?
> 
> bobi

I was just kiddin' of course :) It only took one person to create Ruby, 
yet not sure how much more to really do it.