Re: Public disclosure of discovered vulnerabilities

Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>
>> Negative character codes are consistent with the C standard,
>> and common systems,
>
> No. The value '0xC0' (EBCDIC code for the character '0',
> as I recall) is the *positive* decimal value 192 on *all*
> conforming C implementations.

So quote the standard and show me wrong.

>> character codes may also be to large to fit in
>> an unsigned char; that's why C has wide characters and
>> towupper().
>
> wchar_t has nothing to do with this issue.

You had claimed:

     Olson has mischaracterized the issue, as usual. The toupper
     function has an int argument, not char, and it is perfectly
     safe to feed it any character code (or EOF).

The existence of character codes that are not safe to feed to
toupper() has this to do with the issue: it shows you were
wrong.

-- 
--Bryan