Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add a practice of secure coding about code view #536

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

liujin28
Copy link

Code review is the best practice for security coding. A common security
problem is due to the improper validation of array index that are caused
by external input.

Code view is a best practice for security coding. A common security
problem is due to the improper validation of array index that are caused
by external input.
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Nov 30, 2016

Current coverage is 98.26% (diff: 100%)

Merging #536 into master will not change coverage

@@             master       #536   diff @@
==========================================
  Files            40         40          
  Lines          1038       1038          
  Methods           0          0          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches          0          0          
==========================================
  Hits           1020       1020          
  Misses           18         18          
  Partials          0          0          

Powered by Codecov. Last update 85510b0...b0aa989

Code review is the best practice for security coding. A common security
problem is due to the improper validation of buffer length that are
caused by external input.
…rflow, etc.

add a code review rules about  infinite loop, string copy, integer
overflow, malloc size.
@david-a-wheeler
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks! Adding a new criterion is a big deal - it affects every project (and removes their badge until they meet it). Even if we eventually add it, we need to give projects time to implement it. So I intend to first discuss this in the process of discussing a higher-level badge, then bring this (and other) topics back to perhaps adding it to the existing badge criteria.

@david-a-wheeler
Copy link
Collaborator

We'll add this to the doc/other.md as potential ideas for higher-level badges. Eventually some of this may bleed back down to the "passing" level, but that's a separate step.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants