5 ms·

> no C code in the system. This removes, by construction, a lot of the attack surface normally present in similar systems. Not to be too pedantic here, but it'

> no C code in the system. This removes, by construction, a lot of the attack surface normally present in similar systems. Not to be too pedantic here, but it's important to note that the absence of C code, while arguably a benefit overall, doesn't by itself guarantee anything with regards to safety/security...I suppose there's going to necessarily be at least some "unsafe" Rust and/or raw assembly instructions sprinkled throughout, but I can't yet see that myself (as of the time of writing this comment, the GitHub links are responding with 404). Nonetheless, it's always refreshing to see some good documentation and source code being provided for these kinds of things. Many companies in this space, even these days, sadly continue to live by some outdated values of hiding behind "security through obscurity", which is somehow championed (though using different words) as a benefit even to their own customers, so it's refreshing that others (Oxide among them) are really starting to take a different approach and making their software/firmware publicly available for inspection by anyone inclined to do so.

pjmlp 5y ago
Which is why they state a lot of the attack and not all of the attacks.
steveklabnik 5y ago
To be clear, that sentence refers to the sum total of the things in the previous sentence, not just the bit about C. And it's "a lot of the attack surface" and not "guarantee" for a reason. We don't believe that simply being written in Rust makes things automatically safe or secure. There is some unsafe Rust and some inline assembly, yes. I imagine a lot less than folks may think.
- ls65536 5y ago
  I will admit perhaps I was a bit too loose with my own interpretation of the statement there. I think maybe this was influenced by my being tired of grand statements others have made in the past about the infallibility of writing code in Rust (even with liberal usage of "unsafe" without a proper understanding of what this implies). It's all too often I see some cargo cult-style declaration of "no more C; it's all Rust" as if that has somehow solved all problems and absolved the programmer of the responsibility for ensuring their code is otherwise safe and correct (granted, Rust does make this easier to do), and IMHO this just ends up doing a disservice both to those proclaimers and ultimately to Rust itself. To be clear, this is not a statement against Rust by any means but rather a complaint against the conduct of some of its practitioners. With that being said, I feel I really also need to state here that I absolutely do not believe the above to be the case with the announcement here...Even to the contrary, I would say, as the name "Hubris" says it all. It's great to see Rust used in practice like this, and I look forward to seeing more of the details in the code itself!
  - nextaccountic 5y ago
    > it's all Rust" as if that has somehow solved all problems and absolved the programmer of the responsibility for ensuring their code is otherwise safe and correct (granted, Rust does make this easier to do) Rust is all about making it easier to ensure safety and correctness, yeah! It's still a tough job, but significantly easier than C or C++.

pjmlp 5y ago

Which is why they state a lot of the attack and not all of the attacks.

steveklabnik 5y ago

To be clear, that sentence refers to the sum total of the things in the previous sentence, not just the bit about C. And it's "a lot of the attack surface" and not "guarantee" for a reason. We don't believe that simply being written in Rust makes things automatically safe or secure. There is some unsafe Rust and some inline assembly, yes. I imagine a lot less than folks may think.

ls65536 5y ago
I will admit perhaps I was a bit too loose with my own interpretation of the statement there. I think maybe this was influenced by my being tired of grand statements others have made in the past about the infallibility of writing code in Rust (even with liberal usage of "unsafe" without a proper understanding of what this implies). It's all too often I see some cargo cult-style declaration of "no more C; it's all Rust" as if that has somehow solved all problems and absolved the programmer of the responsibility for ensuring their code is otherwise safe and correct (granted, Rust does make this easier to do), and IMHO this just ends up doing a disservice both to those proclaimers and ultimately to Rust itself. To be clear, this is not a statement against Rust by any means but rather a complaint against the conduct of some of its practitioners. With that being said, I feel I really also need to state here that I absolutely do not believe the above to be the case with the announcement here...Even to the contrary, I would say, as the name "Hubris" says it all. It's great to see Rust used in practice like this, and I look forward to seeing more of the details in the code itself!
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  > it's all Rust" as if that has somehow solved all problems and absolved the programmer of the responsibility for ensuring their code is otherwise safe and correct (granted, Rust does make this easier to do) Rust is all about making it easier to ensure safety and correctness, yeah! It's still a tough job, but significantly easier than C or C++.