News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Serious Chrome zero-day by kllrnohj on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @07:36PM (#19324543)
> Java deserialization RCEs, while pernicious, are nowhere near as common as use-after-free and related bugs in C++ code.

Can you justify that? Actual exploits from Java deserialization RCEs are well known & published, but by contrast searching the CVE database reveals a rather small number for C++ or CPP. Use-after-free gets a large list, but the majority seem to be in C code not C++ code.

Re:Serious Chrome zero-day by littlestymaar on Thursday March 07, 2019 @05:20AM (#19326931)
UAF are the most common, and the most commonly exploited kind of security bugs in Microsoft products for the last decade [1]. And Microsoft products are way more C++ than C.

[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-70-percent-of-all-se...

Re:Serious Chrome zero-day by pjmlp on Friday March 08, 2019 @03:06AM (#19335930)
Which is why their security team is now pushing for C#, Rust and constrained C++ for new developments.

https://github.com/Microsoft/MSRC-Security-Research/tree/mas...

Re:Serious Chrome zero-day by pcwalton on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @10:26PM (#19325317)
All I can say is that more or less the entire security community disagrees with you that RCEs in Java programs are as common as RCEs in C++ programs.
Re:Serious Chrome zero-day by viraptor on Thursday March 07, 2019 @03:59AM (#19326567)
I'm not sure how you'd even search for those, because deserialisation doesn't have an exact, common equivalent in C land. There are almost no cases of arbitrary/named types being constructed from arbitrary inputs at runtime. You have to take into account the really low prior probability for the counts to make sense.