# Should we systematically treat code that crashes compilers/interpreters as malicious? [duplicate]

Despite having What qualifies as malicious code?, the consensus seems really unclear on that point, because this question seems to be valid, and that one isn’t.

In the current case, please note the parsers of such programs tend to be designed to be insecure, so it’s easy to google for examples that crash the program. In some cases, like python, projects maintainers even refuse to fix such bugs because the way it happens is considered to be the normal behaviour.
So the wrong security decision that can be done is to let them work on untrusted code rather than founding more thing that can crash them. So this can’t even be used for denial of service

There are people who think even the 2014 post is still a valid question that doesn't ask for something that can be malicious.

# Update :

Don’t vote to close as a duplicate. Both parties refer to What qualifies as malicious code? to explain whether it’s allowed or not. Please read that comment !
As that question isn’t part of what is asked on What qualifies as malicious code?, there’s no reason it can get asnwered on What qualifies as malicious code?
.

• Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Dennis Aug 4 '16 at 15:23
• All this back and forth is getting us nowhere. Please let us calm down and wait until somebody actually makes his case in an answer, so the community vote on it to show whether it agrees with it or not. – Dennis Aug 4 '16 at 15:29
• I've edited your title to make it more grammatically correct, but keep the same meaning. Please don't edit it back to the original title again. – James Aug 4 '16 at 19:19
• @Dennis : lease let us calm down and wait until somebody actually makes his case in an answerno answer will come for sure. – user2284570 Aug 5 '16 at 15:08
• This has been closed as a duplicate of What qualifies as malicious code?, meaning that the discussion can still take place, just not here. If you feel so strongly about this, add an answer to that thread. – Dennis Aug 5 '16 at 15:41
• @Dennis : I can’t add an answer know that’s it’s closed. I see no reason why that specific concerns here should be answered on the target question. – user2284570 Aug 5 '16 at 16:13
• Because it makes more sense to have one thread about malicious code than one for every subtopic. You can't expect people to wade through 20 different threads before they know if their question is on-topic. I've added an answer to argue in favor of these challenges. Let's see what the community thinks. – Dennis Aug 5 '16 at 16:44