That's a very narrow view of the problem. There are so many moving parts in a program that overwriting an arbitrary chunk of stack is effectively random. Do you object to the term "random number generator" too?
Just saying "or doesn't" is not a useful description. The vast majority of horrible broken behaviors fit inside of that bucket, where it doesn't segfault but then goes on to do the wrong thing at an unexpected place.
And because we're using an optimizing compiler, you can't give a simple description like "overflows a buffer". When the compiler assumes your code is correct, it might output instructions that behave in 'impossible' ways when fed invalid data. For example an if/else that takes neither branch, or both branches, or code that verifies a number has a certain value yet outputs a completely different value. You can only make assertions about what a particular compile will do, and that's obsolete information immediately.
Just saying "or doesn't" is not a useful description. The vast majority of horrible broken behaviors fit inside of that bucket, where it doesn't segfault but then goes on to do the wrong thing at an unexpected place.
And because we're using an optimizing compiler, you can't give a simple description like "overflows a buffer". When the compiler assumes your code is correct, it might output instructions that behave in 'impossible' ways when fed invalid data. For example an if/else that takes neither branch, or both branches, or code that verifies a number has a certain value yet outputs a completely different value. You can only make assertions about what a particular compile will do, and that's obsolete information immediately.