|
|
|
|
|
|
by empath75
2673 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
> 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.