News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ask HN: Firefox vs. Chrome security by nwah1 on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @11:25AM (#15704892)
Apparently about a third of browser security vulnerabilities can be traced to memory safety issues. So, yes.
Re:Ask HN: Firefox vs. Chrome security by icen on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @11:29AM (#15704938)
But how many of them come from the rendering engine?
Re:Ask HN: Firefox vs. Chrome security by bkor on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @11:32AM (#15704960)
They're slowing replacing more and more code with Rust. So eventually Rust will have a much bigger impact.
Re:Ask HN: Firefox vs. Chrome security by rammy1234 on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @11:44AM (#15705113)
Rust helps in to avoid segFaults which helps in avoid buffer overflows and stack overflows. most of security attacks are due to these and can prevent them better. there is no way a developer can write a code in Rust that causes segfaults ( atleast language promises that ).

recent blog post https://blog.rust-lang.org/2017/11/14/Fearless-Concurrency-I...

Re:Ask HN: Firefox vs. Chrome security by kbenson on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @11:55AM (#15705218)
> there is no way a developer can write a code in Rust that causes segfaults ( atleast language promises that ).

Well, as long as you avoid unsafe blocks (which turn off a few safety features in a specific scope so you can do complex or performance critical things in that scope) you're supposed to be safe, but to my knowledge it's not formally proven. In practice it seems to be working quite well though.

Re:Ask HN: Firefox vs. Chrome security by gsnedders on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @11:59AM (#15705259)
> there is no way a developer can write a code in Rust that causes segfaults ( atleast language promises that ).

Well, you can very easily: write bad code in unsafe blocks.

That said, your badness is contained within unsafe blocks, so hopefully you have much less code to closely review.

Re:Ask HN: Firefox vs. Chrome security by rammy1234 on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @02:08PM (#15706782)
right, it is well known to the developers what to look for when we see something wrong. it doesnt crash randomly, it cries out loud when it fails so we know what is happening and manage it better.
Re:Ask HN: Firefox vs. Chrome security by greenhouse_gas on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @12:22PM (#15705490)
I remember that quite a few were JS exploits (which is why noscript is so popular), and there's no plan to rewrite the JS JIT to rust (not that it would help much anyways)
Re:Ask HN: Firefox vs. Chrome security by jovial_galileo on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @01:58AM (#15754878)
They want to rewrite everything in Rust, including the JS JIT https://blog.mozilla.org/javascript/2017/10/20/holyjit-a-new...
Re:Ask HN: Firefox vs. Chrome security by majewsky on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @12:46PM (#15705776)
For example, NoScript disables webfonts because parsing font files (which is among the jobs of the rendering engine) is done in decades-old, convoluted C code.
Re:Ask HN: Firefox vs. Chrome security by jovial_galileo on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @02:01AM (#15754889)
They plan to replace that with Pathfinder https://blog.rust-lang.org/2017/11/14/Fearless-Concurrency-I...
Re:Ask HN: Firefox vs. Chrome security by jagger27 on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @11:41AM (#15705071)
A quick look at the recent CVEs for Firefox seems like most of them come from there.
Re:Ask HN: Firefox vs. Chrome security by yeukhon on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @11:55AM (#15705220)
Written in C/C++ or any memory-unsafe language means the above.