News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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.
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...

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...)