[scoutt]

Such affirmation requires that a crash will never produce a security problem. But for example...

"Families are LOCKED OUT of or INSIDE their homes as Yale 'smart' security app crashes leaving dozens stranded"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6268379/People-lock...

"Households up and down the UK were unable to lock or unlock their doors"

An unlocked door it's a security problem too...

[empath75]

That's still a bug. I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse about what's considered to be a security problem in code. Nobody ever suggested that rust code can never crash or have bugs. It's just about memory safety, which obviously has nothing to do with door locks.

[scoutt]

Sorry if I gave that impression. It was not my intention.

> A crash is a bug but not a security problem.

I think that all bugs, the ones that produces crashes and security bugs should be all treated equally. A bug is a bug, whenever it has security implications or not.

To me, the article gives the impression that a system crash is not a security problem, because a Rust program will "terminate in a controlled fashion, preventing any illegal access". But one for example, can fingerprint a system by forcing it to crash.

And of course, nobody expects that Rust will prevent bugs from happening, but at the same time I don't get why the fixation of setting a difference between security bugs and bugs.

"security problems are just bugs" - Linus Torvalds. (http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01701.html)

edit: Linus reference.

[empath75]

Security problems are bugs but not all bugs are security problems.