That page makes the same mistake I did, which caused Ted to write the article in the first place. There's no memory safety issue at play, at least not in the wa

That page makes the same mistake I did, which caused Ted to write the article in the first place. There's no memory safety issue at play, at least not in the way memory safety is usually referred to. As the TFA shows, the problem is explicitly reusing the same buffer. I don't think there's a general way to prevent this kind of code. I guess more than just me assumed Heartbleed was a typical blindly allocate and read, going past the buffer bound. But that's not what happened. Writing the same thing is totally possible in OCaml. And in a safe language with GC, it's not unheard of to reuse objects for performance. So in fact it's perhaps even somewhat probable to end up with a Heartbleed-like bug.