4 ms·

>People will still write apps. And those apps, probably upwards of 99.999999% of them will be unsafe. This can be avoided if you have a cross platform high lev

>People will still write apps. And those apps, probably upwards of 99.999999% of them will be unsafe. This can be avoided if you have a cross platform high level language like say C# with a big standard library like .Net , the field needs then to make sure the language and core library are safe, most programs use existing libraries and put some business logic on top, I remember that memory safety was a thing before Rust was born, the issue was that either the languages were too slow, were not cross platform or had weird license or were "garbage". If this gaints like Apple, Google, Facebook would contribute on rewriting or prove that the core libraries they use are correct then things would improve, but how would they continue to increase their obscene profits ?

delusional 5y ago
"If we could just have one more layer of abstraction, THEN we would be secure". You'll end up making a standard library so big that it will never be secure. And even more portantly, you'll strangle innovation by disallowing improvements to the standard library.
- simion314 5y ago
  I would not make it illegal for cool devs to invent their own language or libraries. I want a good default for string manipulation,http, file manipulation, json/xml/zip and other format parsing, you could rewrite your own in CoolLang using QunatumReactiveAntiFunctionalPatterns. It is your choice if you use a proven correct zip library or you use a different one written by some stranger in a weekend In CoolLang. Something like JVM or.Net would be part of the solution because you could pacify developers because they can use their darling language but target the same platform as the others. We still need true engineers to create an OS and Standard library from the ground up, designed for security and not chaotically evolved.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    > I want a good default for string manipulation,http, file manipulation, json/xml/zip and other format parsing Wanting those things is fine but delivering those things is extremely difficult. JSON/XML/Zip have so many weird edge cases it's maybe impossible to write parsers that are complete to the spec yet also truly secure. XML and Zip bombs aren't explicit features of either format but they're side effects of not being explicitly forbidden. You're also want "good" parsers without specifying in which dimension you want them to be "good". You can have a complete parser that's reasonably secure but then pay for that with CPU cycles and memory. You can have a small and fast parser that's likely incomplete or has exploitable holes.
    - simion314 5y ago
      I mean a good parser should be correct. We can have different implementation, say if you work with trusted data and you know that your json/html/xml has a specific form you can create a correct parser that handles this subset and is faster then the generic complete one. We probably need to create better specifications, probably using a log/math language that can verify the specifications are valid and clear. It will be hard since people will need to learn to be more clear but it might also simplify things , say we would have a simple replacement for html and css if the guys creating it would have to do it in such a language. The giants use json right, so they could put some money together find some experts to write a specification, if json is flawed they can write a new version of it that is correct, then when specification is coded they can release it, and after that this giants can pay some developers to implement it and prove the implementation correctness. They should repeat it for one image format, they can chose what is a decent image format and do that, then do it for html, audio, video... it will save them money if less security issues happen on their servers or in their users devices. But it will save them money only if it would cost them when their devices get owned, this means we should stop apologizing this bugs with extreme fake stuff like "99.9% of applications have security issues"
bilbo0s 5y ago
Respectfully, an enormous amount of work has gone into making sure things like Python, .NET, and Rust are secure. And the security researchers still regularly find bugs and sell 0-days. That's not even counting the work that's gone into the gold standard that is the JVM. Any serious minded security expert could tell you that guaranteeing security on any of these platforms is a sysiphean effort. Your platform is state of the art with respect to security, until it is not. The essential problem is features. Devs want features. So Python, .NET, etc, and even the browsers try to provide access to those features. But some of those features are simply inherently unsafe. Someone will find a way to compromise this feature or that. How does one provide 100% safe access to the GPU? The file system? And so on. It's not really possible. At some point, the app level dev will have to keep a security mindset when writing his code. Don't do things on the GPU that compromise the system. But that has to be on the app developer if that developer is demanding that the browsers give him/her access to the GPU. I don't know if I'm being clear? But I hope you can see what I'm trying to say.
- simion314 5y ago
  You are using big words like "Impossible" such big word would need a proof. There are languages that can produce programs proven to be correct as per the specifications. We don't have such programs because we prefer moving fast, breaking things, having fun while coding, making money etc. Do you have a proof that it is impossible to have a secure calculator application? About .Net and Python, they are using a lot of wrappers around old unsafe code, so we would need to put more work and eliminate that, MS failed because of their shity Windows first ideals and their FUD,
- saagarjha 5y ago
  > Don't do things on the GPU that compromise the system. Easier said than done…
  - simion314 5y ago
    If say a Game or 3D program crashes the system or causes a security issue the problem is the driver or the hardware. A correct driver and hardware should not allow any user level application to cause issues. I know is hard, this GPU companies need to keep backward compatibility, support different operating systems(and versions), support old stuff that worked by mistake. and probably some "benchmark cheeting might be hidden in the proprietary drivers too".

delusional 5y ago

"If we could just have one more layer of abstraction, THEN we would be secure". You'll end up making a standard library so big that it will never be secure. And even more portantly, you'll strangle innovation by disallowing improvements to the standard library.

simion314 5y ago
I would not make it illegal for cool devs to invent their own language or libraries. I want a good default for string manipulation,http, file manipulation, json/xml/zip and other format parsing, you could rewrite your own in CoolLang using QunatumReactiveAntiFunctionalPatterns. It is your choice if you use a proven correct zip library or you use a different one written by some stranger in a weekend In CoolLang. Something like JVM or.Net would be part of the solution because you could pacify developers because they can use their darling language but target the same platform as the others. We still need true engineers to create an OS and Standard library from the ground up, designed for security and not chaotically evolved.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  > I want a good default for string manipulation,http, file manipulation, json/xml/zip and other format parsing Wanting those things is fine but delivering those things is extremely difficult. JSON/XML/Zip have so many weird edge cases it's maybe impossible to write parsers that are complete to the spec yet also truly secure. XML and Zip bombs aren't explicit features of either format but they're side effects of not being explicitly forbidden. You're also want "good" parsers without specifying in which dimension you want them to be "good". You can have a complete parser that's reasonably secure but then pay for that with CPU cycles and memory. You can have a small and fast parser that's likely incomplete or has exploitable holes.
  - simion314 5y ago
    I mean a good parser should be correct. We can have different implementation, say if you work with trusted data and you know that your json/html/xml has a specific form you can create a correct parser that handles this subset and is faster then the generic complete one. We probably need to create better specifications, probably using a log/math language that can verify the specifications are valid and clear. It will be hard since people will need to learn to be more clear but it might also simplify things , say we would have a simple replacement for html and css if the guys creating it would have to do it in such a language. The giants use json right, so they could put some money together find some experts to write a specification, if json is flawed they can write a new version of it that is correct, then when specification is coded they can release it, and after that this giants can pay some developers to implement it and prove the implementation correctness. They should repeat it for one image format, they can chose what is a decent image format and do that, then do it for html, audio, video... it will save them money if less security issues happen on their servers or in their users devices. But it will save them money only if it would cost them when their devices get owned, this means we should stop apologizing this bugs with extreme fake stuff like "99.9% of applications have security issues"

bilbo0s 5y ago

Respectfully, an enormous amount of work has gone into making sure things like Python, .NET, and Rust are secure. And the security researchers still regularly find bugs and sell 0-days. That's not even counting the work that's gone into the gold standard that is the JVM. Any serious minded security expert could tell you that guaranteeing security on any of these platforms is a sysiphean effort. Your platform is state of the art with respect to security, until it is not. The essential problem is features. Devs want features. So Python, .NET, etc, and even the browsers try to provide access to those features. But some of those features are simply inherently unsafe. Someone will find a way to compromise this feature or that. How does one provide 100% safe access to the GPU? The file system? And so on. It's not really possible. At some point, the app level dev will have to keep a security mindset when writing his code. Don't do things on the GPU that compromise the system. But that has to be on the app developer if that developer is demanding that the browsers give him/her access to the GPU. I don't know if I'm being clear? But I hope you can see what I'm trying to say.

simion314 5y ago
You are using big words like "Impossible" such big word would need a proof. There are languages that can produce programs proven to be correct as per the specifications. We don't have such programs because we prefer moving fast, breaking things, having fun while coding, making money etc. Do you have a proof that it is impossible to have a secure calculator application? About .Net and Python, they are using a lot of wrappers around old unsafe code, so we would need to put more work and eliminate that, MS failed because of their shity Windows first ideals and their FUD,
saagarjha 5y ago
> Don't do things on the GPU that compromise the system. Easier said than done…
- simion314 5y ago
  If say a Game or 3D program crashes the system or causes a security issue the problem is the driver or the hardware. A correct driver and hardware should not allow any user level application to cause issues. I know is hard, this GPU companies need to keep backward compatibility, support different operating systems(and versions), support old stuff that worked by mistake. and probably some "benchmark cheeting might be hidden in the proprietary drivers too".