News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017) by staticassertion on Sunday May 03, 2020 @02:12PM (#23060798)
There is a big difference between being having vulnerabilities and being valuable attack surface. Again, I am not saying that cat and others do not provide attack surface, or even valuable attack surface, only that step 1 is not "rewrite cat".

Generally "cat" is not exposed to the internet, and if you're running a service and you said "I'm concerned about local attackers using cat" it's probably a lot easier to just put the service into some sort of environment (container, sandbox, user, whatever) that doesn't give access to cat.

Re:Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017) by numbsafari on Sunday May 03, 2020 @04:15PM (#23061532)
> step 1 is not "rewrite cat"

Totally agree on this point. In fact, I think it’s brash for the rust armada to think that the borrow checker alone is going to help replace 20+ years of maintenance on these kinds of tools, which often crufty, and gnarled by the sands and whims of generations that preceded us.

Re:Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017) by staticassertion on Sunday May 03, 2020 @04:26PM (#23061605)
As a member of the Rust Armada I can tell you that I don't believe that rewriting cat in rust is something I consider a high priority.