3 ms·
Other classes of bugs will take the place of memory safety bugs. For example, I don't think the recent Log4j exploit is a memory safety bug, but could be wrong.
by infamouscow 5y ago
Other classes of bugs will take the place of memory safety bugs. For example, I don't think the recent Log4j exploit is a memory safety bug, but could be wrong.
- zbentley 5y agoWithout weighing in on Rust specifically, that's a fallacy, though I'm unsure of the formal name of it: "any solution that doesn't solve all problems is equivalent to the status quo". Nobody is claiming all bugs will go away. But the claim that new classes of bugs will manifest specifically to take the place of memory safety bugs is extraordinary and needs justification. It's a bit like going into the wilderness and packing survival gear: the argument "you don't need a warm jacket, because if you get lost the starvation will kill you even if the frostbite doesn't" doesn't hold up.
- jhatemyjob 5y agoWhen you use simple metaphors to describe complicated politics in software development, that's when you lost the argument
- pdimitar 5y agoUntil that day we should make sure to eliminate the class of bugs that's #1 in all security problems -- namely buffer [over|under]flows. I'd be happy to hear this statistic has shifted towards the next #1 problem. But we're not there yet.
- woodruffw 5y agoThe problem is behavioral scope: bugs will always exist, but there is no particular reason for a buffer overflow to allow someone to run arbitrary code on my computer. It should, at the absolute worst, cause an uncontrolled program termination.