5 ms·

It's true though

gjsman-1000 5y ago
Not entirely. Remember some things, like kernels, require unsafe() calls which tell Rust to turn off the memory safety to function properly. There will be significantly less bugs, but there absolutely will be bugs with memory safety remaining.
- ianlevesque 5y ago
  Sure, but we've been trying to "just fix the bugs in the C codebase" for ~30 years now and it just keeps getting worse.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    >and it just keeps getting worse. Is there any evidence for that because my perception is it has become much harder to exploit systems.
    - xvector 5y ago
      What we are seeing is a problem with the very fundamentals of software written in non-memory-safe languages. Everything we do is a bandaid. Any sufficiently funded group will find the zero days they need to exploit the users they want. It's not even a question of if they will find it, or when they will find it. They will find it and they will use it for unethical means. This whole situation is hopeless until we go back to the basics and build systems from the ground-up with security in mind rather than trying to slap band-aids on architectures that were developed when computer security didn't even exist as a serious concept.
      - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
        None the less is there any evidence that "it just keeps getting worse"?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        xvector 5y ago
        https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2018/04/30/cve-100k-by-the-numbers/ https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2018/04/30/cve-100k-by-the-...
        pvarangot 5y ago
        That may just mean more software is being written and older software can still have a vulnerability that gets a CVE assigned. Also a lot of CVEs are for potentially dangerous crashes that not necessarily can be a exploited and of course a lot of them are for client sides requiring a lot of user intervention. So no what Rapid7 is saying doesn't mean it's getting worse. Also they sell offensive penetration testing software, they have an interest in making your believe it's getting worse.
- Arrath 5y ago
  Conceptually, why must a kernel require unsafe calls or actions in some routines? Is it too expensive in terms of performance, or time spent digging through the guts of ancient code? Is there some inherent property of the low level functions that require unsafe code?
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Ask the people working on Redox OS, which is a Rust-base kernel and userland. They would know better than me, and they state on their website that running a completely memory-safe OS in Rust without calling unsafe() is not possible.

It's true though

Not entirely. Remember some things, like kernels, require unsafe() calls which tell Rust to turn off the memory safety to function properly. There will be significantly less bugs, but there absolutely will be bugs with memory safety remaining.

ianlevesque 5y ago
Sure, but we've been trying to "just fix the bugs in the C codebase" for ~30 years now and it just keeps getting worse.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  >and it just keeps getting worse. Is there any evidence for that because my perception is it has become much harder to exploit systems.
  - xvector 5y ago
    What we are seeing is a problem with the very fundamentals of software written in non-memory-safe languages. Everything we do is a bandaid. Any sufficiently funded group will find the zero days they need to exploit the users they want. It's not even a question of if they will find it, or when they will find it. They will find it and they will use it for unethical means. This whole situation is hopeless until we go back to the basics and build systems from the ground-up with security in mind rather than trying to slap band-aids on architectures that were developed when computer security didn't even exist as a serious concept.
    - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
      None the less is there any evidence that "it just keeps getting worse"?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - xvector 5y ago
        https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2018/04/30/cve-100k-by-the-numbers/ https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2018/04/30/cve-100k-by-the-...
        pvarangot 5y ago
        That may just mean more software is being written and older software can still have a vulnerability that gets a CVE assigned. Also a lot of CVEs are for potentially dangerous crashes that not necessarily can be a exploited and of course a lot of them are for client sides requiring a lot of user intervention. So no what Rapid7 is saying doesn't mean it's getting worse. Also they sell offensive penetration testing software, they have an interest in making your believe it's getting worse.
Arrath 5y ago
Conceptually, why must a kernel require unsafe calls or actions in some routines? Is it too expensive in terms of performance, or time spent digging through the guts of ancient code? Is there some inherent property of the low level functions that require unsafe code?
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Ask the people working on Redox OS, which is a Rust-base kernel and userland. They would know better than me, and they state on their website that running a completely memory-safe OS in Rust without calling unsafe() is not possible.