On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Adam Shostack wrote:
> ftp://grilled.cs.wisc.edu/technical_papers/fuzz-revisited.ps.Z
Wow. This is good stuff! Thanks for posting. It's excellent ammo for my
"Linux rulez" vs. "A drunken Finn and his band of merry hackers could
never code a stable OS" debates. :)
Quoting the important bit for those of you who were to lazy to ftp and
read the file...
>From "Fuzz Revisited: A Re-examination of the Reliability of
UNIX Utilities and Services" by Barton P. Miller <bart @
cs .
wisc .
edu> et al
(ftp://grilled.cs.wisc.edu/technical_papers/fuzz-revisited.ps.Z):
The result of our testing is that we can crash (with core dump) or hang
(infinite loop) over 40% (in the worst case) of the basic programs and
over 25% of the X-Window applications. We were not able to crash any of
the network services that we tested nor any of X-Window servers. This
study parallels our 1990 study (that tested only the basic UNIX
utilities); all systems that we compared between 1990 and 1995 noticeably
improved in reliability, but still had significant rates of failure. The
reliability of the basic utilities from GNU and Linux were noticeably
better than those of the commercial systems.
----------
Tracy Reed
http://straylight.connectnet.com
http://www.linux.org - Escape the Gates of Hell
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
