4 ms·
I can not be responsible for however said highly attacked systems were designed and hence can not judge. In my own cases I use proprietary protocols for client
by FpUser 7y ago
I can not be responsible for however said highly attacked systems were designed and hence can not judge.
In my own cases I use proprietary protocols for client-server communications that more or less ensure that memory bounds are not broken.
Of course attackers might be able to punch holes in lower layers ( UDP for example ) over which I have no direct control but in this case Rust would use the same UDP stack and offer no advantage.
- mcqueenjordan 7y agoI’m glad to hear that your code is unbreakable and without any bugs, but pcwalton’s claim is still absolutely correct. > This is empirically not true. Tons of memory safety issues are found (and exploited) all the time in modern idiomatic C++ codebases.
- FpUser 7y ago"I’m glad to hear that your code is unbreakable and without any bugs, but pcwalton’s claim is still absolutely correct" I smell sarcasm here. I do not claim my code to be unbreakable. I do believe it is REASONABLY safe by design. pcwalton's claim is generic claim about generic code that may have no relevance to particular situations. Mine for example