4 ms·
Such affirmation requires that a crash will never produce a security problem. But for example... "Families are LOCKED OUT of or INSIDE their homes as Yale 'sma
by scoutt 8y ago
Such affirmation requires that a crash will never produce a security problem. But for example...
"Families are LOCKED OUT of or INSIDE their homes as Yale 'smart' security app crashes leaving dozens stranded"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6268379/People-locked-houses-Yale-smart-security-crashes.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6268379/People-lock...
"Households up and down the UK were unable to lock or unlock their doors"
An unlocked door it's a security problem too...
- empath75 8y agoThat's still a bug. I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse about what's considered to be a security problem in code. Nobody ever suggested that rust code can never crash or have bugs. It's just about memory safety, which obviously has nothing to do with door locks.
- scoutt 8y agoSorry if I gave that impression. It was not my intention. > A crash is a bug but not a security problem. I think that all bugs, the ones that produces crashes and security bugs should be all treated equally. A bug is a bug, whenever it has security implications or not. To me, the article gives the impression that a system crash is not a security problem, because a Rust program will "terminate in a controlled fashion, preventing any illegal access". But one for example, can fingerprint a system by forcing it to crash. And of course, nobody expects that Rust will prevent bugs from happening, but at the same time I don't get why the fixation of setting a difference between security bugs and bugs. "security problems are just bugs" - Linus Torvalds. (http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01701.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01701.html) edit: Linus reference.
- empath75 8y agoSecurity problems are bugs but not all bugs are security problems.