2 ms·
Yes but the point of safe languages is to eliminate the memory safety security bugs, which tend to be the worst and the most common. An unsafe-by-default langu
by pizlonator 2y ago
Yes but the point of safe languages is to eliminate the memory safety security bugs, which tend to be the worst and the most common.
An unsafe-by-default language that has some safety features isn't enough to fix memory safety.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- uecker 2y agoI don't they are the worst (often hard or impossible to exploit) and also not the most common according to: https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerabilities-by-types.php https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerabilities-by-types.php (despite likely easy to find). Memory safety is something which can be solved though, which is what memory safe languages do. Of course, Rust is only an incremental improvement because of unsafe.
- steveklabnik 2y agoThe claim was scoped to the organizations that made the claim: Mozilla, Google, and Microsoft independently claimed that around 70% of their security issues were memory safety related, not that every CVE ever filed was that weighted towards one vulnerability class.