2 ms·
Everything you say about memory safety issues applies to logic bugs too. And likewise in reverse - you can have a memory safety issue that doesn't result in a v
by samdoesnothing 11mo ago
Everything you say about memory safety issues applies to logic bugs too. And likewise in reverse - you can have a memory safety issue that doesn't result in a vulnerability or crash. So I don't buy it that memory safety is so different from other types of bugs that it should be considered a binary issue and not on a spectrum like everything else!
- lmm 11mo ago> Everything you say about memory safety issues applies to logic bugs too. It doesn't, because logic bugs generally have, or can be made to have limited scope. > And likewise in reverse - you can have a memory safety issue that doesn't result in a vulnerability or crash. No you can't, not in standard C. Any case of memory unsafety is undefined behaviour, therefore a conforming implementation may implement it as a vulnerability and/or crash. (You can have a memory safety issue that happens to not result in a vulnerability or crash in the current version of gcc/clang, but that's a lot less reassuring)
- blub 11mo agoThis whole memory-bugs-are-magical thinking just comes from the Rust community and is not an axiomatic truth. It’s also trivial to discount, since the classical evaluation of bugs is based on actual impact, not some nebulous notions of scope or what-may-happen. In practice, the program will crash most of the time. Maybe it will corrupt or erase some files. Maybe it will crash the Windows kernel and cause 10 billion in damages; just like a Rust panic would, by the way.