BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS

Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by pcwalton on Thursday November 03, 2016 @11:07PM (#12870061)

I don't mean "isomorphic" in that every Rust feature has a corresponding C feature. I mean that you can replicate every runtime C feature in Rust, and vice versa. The advantage of Rust is that you get a lot more safety guarantees and ergonomic features out of the compiler than you would with C.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by bandrami on Friday November 04, 2016 @06:48AM (#12871600)

Are any of those safety guarantees important to a crypto project, though? Even heartbleed wasn't a "buffer overrun" in the memory safety sense of that word: the client was asking for and receiving the contents of memory that the server had every right, from a safety standpoint, to read from.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by pcwalton on Friday November 04, 2016 @02:07PM (#12874594)

Absolutely. You're confusing Heartbleed and Tedbleed.

https://tonyarcieri.com/would-rust-have-prevented-heartbleed...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by bandrami on Saturday November 05, 2016 @04:49PM (#12881818)

Oh, wow, thank you! I totally had conflated those two in my head. (Let this go down as a rare instance of a HN commenter not doubling down on being wrong...)

[ Parent | on HN ]