I mean yes, I do, given safe Rust inherently fixes seemingly every exploit listed in this article:
RCE from integer overflow (not possible by default in Rust, CVSS 9.0)
RCE from a race condition (not possible in safe Rust, CVSS 9.0)
An exploit of a buffer copy
An out-of-bounds write leading to local privilege escalation
Using an uninitialized resource
TCP query stack buffer overflow leading to local privilege escalation
I feel like it’s the 1960s and I’m being told “we get it, you like seatbelts”.
Edit: Sorry, re: the first one. I was misremembering based on a mix of a few things (see below). It does this in debug mode (which in itself is good to have), and it won’t compile if it can detect an overflow statically, but it’s not checking over/underflow at runtime by default. It can do this if you want it to, but that’s an inherent speed penalty from C. I was thinking of Swift, which does automatically detect integer under/overflow at runtime unless you explicitly tell it not to on a per-operator basis.
In the spirit of not making you “trust me bro” since I was so wrong about the integer under/overflow one, here’s Rust’s overview of how safe Rust guarantees against data races.
Yeah, you’re right. I was thinking of a combination of Rust’s debug mode, the fact it won’t compile if it detects a static under/overflow, and Swift’s default producing a runtime error on integer under/overflow. Corrected; I apologize.
> “sounds like someone trying to push their preferred language onto others.”
> didn’t even name Rust in the first comment
I literally only talked about Rust when someone else mentioned it, because I’m not specifically talking about Rust.
Whereas yes, Rust is relevant to the Linux kernel for obvious reasons (matching C’s speed and being easily interoperable with it), I said “a modern language” because I’m talking generally about the use of old, unsafe languages and major exploits surrounding problems that modern languages fix cropping up every 5 seconds.
I’m not going to police my own tone about what are clearly negligent engineering practices. SWE should be treated with the same level of scrutiny as other engineering fields when its poor, outdated practices are constantly causing accelerating worldwide damage.
Cool, that’s fine. I think it was clear I didn’t mean literally everyone. At least for me the boosterism has been pretty relentless for many years, taking over from the Python dogmatism before that.
The languages are cool and have many nice aspects, the volunteer advertising is tiresome though.
I mean yes, I do, given safe Rust inherently fixes seemingly every exploit listed in this article:
RCE from integer overflow (not possible by default in Rust, CVSS 9.0)I feel like it’s the 1960s and I’m being told “we get it, you like seatbelts”.
Edit: Sorry, re: the first one. I was misremembering based on a mix of a few things (see below). It does this in debug mode (which in itself is good to have), and it won’t compile if it can detect an overflow statically, but it’s not checking over/underflow at runtime by default. It can do this if you want it to, but that’s an inherent speed penalty from C. I was thinking of Swift, which does automatically detect integer under/overflow at runtime unless you explicitly tell it not to on a per-operator basis.
In the spirit of not making you “trust me bro” since I was so wrong about the integer under/overflow one, here’s Rust’s overview of how safe Rust guarantees against data races.
It is possible. Rust will check for overflow and panic in debug builds, but will silently wrap integers in release builds.
Yeah, you’re right. I was thinking of a combination of Rust’s debug mode, the fact it won’t compile if it detects a static under/overflow, and Swift’s default producing a runtime error on integer under/overflow. Corrected; I apologize.
OpenBSD makes pointless seemingly every exploit listed in this article (correct me if I am wrong). The lead is anti-rust.
Yeah because the way you said it is extremely dick-ish and sounds like someone trying to push their preferred language onto others.
> “sounds like someone trying to push their preferred language onto others.”
> didn’t even name Rust in the first comment
I literally only talked about Rust when someone else mentioned it, because I’m not specifically talking about Rust.
Whereas yes, Rust is relevant to the Linux kernel for obvious reasons (matching C’s speed and being easily interoperable with it), I said “a modern language” because I’m talking generally about the use of old, unsafe languages and major exploits surrounding problems that modern languages fix cropping up every 5 seconds.
I’m not going to police my own tone about what are clearly negligent engineering practices. SWE should be treated with the same level of scrutiny as other engineering fields when its poor, outdated practices are constantly causing accelerating worldwide damage.
Everyone is sick of this low effort advocacy
I’m not. Keep going @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
Idk, I find it pretty informative.
Cool, that’s fine. I think it was clear I didn’t mean literally everyone. At least for me the boosterism has been pretty relentless for many years, taking over from the Python dogmatism before that.
The languages are cool and have many nice aspects, the volunteer advertising is tiresome though.
How dare people post facts about modern tools in a tech oriented community!? So sick of it!