> These are surely C vulnerabilities Yes ... > and contradict the statement regarding zero policy static analysis errors. Not necessarily - I've found that s

> These are surely C vulnerabilities Yes ... > and contradict the statement regarding zero policy static analysis errors. Not necessarily - I've found that static analysis tools (Coverity etc.) have limitations, and I'd expect them to find less than half of these kind of bugs - serious fuzzing tends to find more. The static analysis tool has to work with the type system of the language, and C's type system isn't particularly helpful, so the tool has to find a balance between flagging almost every pointer dereference as "potentially a problem", most of them being false positives, and flagging only the small percentage of actual problems that can be unambiguously proven to be problems with the context available inside a single function definition. (Just stating generalities, haven't looked at the fixes for these bugs.)