4 ms·

> security community has yet to deliver a proper solution What do you want them to do? I think their solution is "use memory-safe languages like Golang or Rus

> security community has yet to deliver a proper solution What do you want them to do? I think their solution is "use memory-safe languages like Golang or Rust (or even JavaScript/TypeScript) for new projects, not C or C++" and "use extensive fuzzing on legacy C code that hasn't been replaced yet". Fuzzing was capable of finding Heartbleed, and it's advanced massively (and been set up at scale to continuously test open source projects) since then.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
guerrilla 7y ago
> What do you want them to do? If you read to the end of the comment, it suggests dependent typing as the solution.
z3phyr 7y ago
Rust is pretty useful against memory based bugs, and it is prudent that new projects take advantage of it. But this in no way fixes the headache of security, because (1) almost all of the existing infrastructure code depends on C (2) New classes of bugs will eventually emmerge, some partly unfixable by software solution.
- carlmr 7y ago
  >New classes of bugs will eventually emmerge, some partly unfixable by software solution. Sure Rust, ADA and such don't remove all classes of bugs, but they can reduce the attack surface considerably, giving you more time to focus on the remaining security bugs. And maybe people will invent software solutions that reduce the attack surface even more. Assembly is a fast car with no security features. C is a sportscar with a seatbelt. Rust is a sportscar with a seatbelt, airbags, ABS, ESC and emergency breaking. Of course you can still crash and die, it's just that you're less likely to do so.
  - braindeath 7y ago
    > Assembly is a fast car with no security features. C is a sportscar with a seatbelt. Given the ways you can trigger UB there is no difference between Assembly and C with regards to safety.
    - eigenloss 7y ago
      Just type "undefined behavior" here. I'm sure you have the time.
    - carlmr 7y ago
      I know what you mean, however I think C did bring down the amount of bugs compared to assembly, just by making code easier to read and higher level abstractions available. It's still not much though.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

guerrilla 7y ago

> What do you want them to do? If you read to the end of the comment, it suggests dependent typing as the solution.

z3phyr 7y ago

Rust is pretty useful against memory based bugs, and it is prudent that new projects take advantage of it. But this in no way fixes the headache of security, because (1) almost all of the existing infrastructure code depends on C (2) New classes of bugs will eventually emmerge, some partly unfixable by software solution.

carlmr 7y ago
>New classes of bugs will eventually emmerge, some partly unfixable by software solution. Sure Rust, ADA and such don't remove all classes of bugs, but they can reduce the attack surface considerably, giving you more time to focus on the remaining security bugs. And maybe people will invent software solutions that reduce the attack surface even more. Assembly is a fast car with no security features. C is a sportscar with a seatbelt. Rust is a sportscar with a seatbelt, airbags, ABS, ESC and emergency breaking. Of course you can still crash and die, it's just that you're less likely to do so.
- braindeath 7y ago
  > Assembly is a fast car with no security features. C is a sportscar with a seatbelt. Given the ways you can trigger UB there is no difference between Assembly and C with regards to safety.
  - eigenloss 7y ago
    Just type "undefined behavior" here. I'm sure you have the time.
  - carlmr 7y ago
    I know what you mean, however I think C did bring down the amount of bugs compared to assembly, just by making code easier to read and higher level abstractions available. It's still not much though.