The number of buffer overflow vulnerabilities is probably starting to overflow itself by now.

> I’d love to see a running tally of the cost of buffer overflows.

It's probably a lot lower than the cost of never implementing the software in the first place.

Apparenltly quite a bit,

https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/16/a-proactive-appro...

70% exploits leading to a few billions in salaries to everyone involved fixing those holes.

> Another buffer overflow bug.

time to shill ATS

I don't get why ATS isn't more popular. It's a really cool language.

It is very cool, but the type system is quite complex.

Well if they would have written Windows in a dynamic language 26 years ago, nobody would be using it, and the cost would be zero.. :P

> "I’d love to see a running tally of the cost of buffer overflows"

Buffer overflows don't even show up in OWASP's list of top 10 vulnerabilities, most of which are language agnostic.

Aside from that, a tally of the cost of buffer overflows is dwarfed by a tally of the cost of CPU cycles, RAM, and other system resources wasted by the inefficiency of safe languages and their ecosystems.