|
|
|
|
|
by DannyBee
1492 days ago
|
|
I admire your optimism, but the notion that missing access checks are somehow less dangerous in a memory safe language is nonsense on its face. Yes, this particular one enabled a defeat of ASLR, but so what?
Missing access checks enable privilege escalation no matter what the language. Your claim that "has well-definable consequences" is equally true in C++ as anywhere else.
Whether you miss your access check in rust, or C++, or python, or whatever, the definable consequences are "privilege escalation". Let's not pretend memory safe languages solve logic problems.
They help with memory safety - that's awesome but not a complete solution. If we want better verification of access contracts, we'd need a language with contracts or some other verifiable mechanism. Those exist, and i'd support their use in this sort of case. |
|
There is no equivalence to make. Memory corruption bugs are unambiguously, unequivocally better exploitation primitives than logic bugs.
No one is claiming that memory-safe languages solve logic problems. The claim is that most memory corruption bugs are conveniently exploitable and any exploit can reach for anything in the address space, and logic bugs often can’t. You could as well say that you’d rather promote chess pawns to knights instead of queens. Like, that makes sense sometimes, but it’s a bad default.