[uecker]

Software written in Rust also experiences safety issues. If you believe otherwise, you are delusional. In the end, if you want extremely safe software there is no other way than formal verification. (and then there can still hardware be issues or bugs in the specification)

[yusina]

The world is not black-and-white. One can have more or less issues.

And the same goes for improving the situation. Stopping the world and rewriting everything is never going to fly. The only viable approach is gradual introduction of safer techniques, be it a language or verification options, that step by step improve things and make the bar of adoption minimal. Nobody is going to get convinced if this is cast as a culture war. The folks annoyed by the status quo need to bring the skeptics along, everything else is doomed to fail (as well-illustrated by all the discussions here).

[Ygg2]

> Software written in Rust also experiences safety issues.

Yes. And?

Seatbelts and air bags all experience safety issues, and general public was against them for a very long time. It doesn't mean they don't increase safety. Or that because you could fall into volcano you should abolish seatbelts.

How about for start software with no memory errors? How about more XSS and less UAF?

Also, not even formal proofs are enough. A smart enough attacker will use the gap between spec and implementation and target those errors.

And while I agree we need more formal proofs and invariant oriented software design, those options are even less popular than Haskell.

[yusina]

> A smart enough attacker will use the gap between spec and implementation and target those errors.

"Formal verification" literally means that the implementation is proven to satisfy the formal specification, so by definition there won't be any gaps. That's the whole point of formal verification.

But you have a point in that there will still be gaps -- between specification and intent. That is, bugs in the specification. (Or maybe you mean "specification" to be some kind of informal description? That's closer to intent than an actual specification which in the formal verification world is a formal and rigorous description of the required behavior.) Though those bugs would likely be significantly less prevalent .. at least that's the expectation, since nobody has really been able to do this in the real world.

[Ygg2]

> "Formal verification" literally means that the implementation is proven to satisfy the formal specification, so by definition there won't be any gaps.

To quote Donald Knuth:

    "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."

Sure but proof itself might have gaps itself. A famous proved implementation of mergesort had a subtle flaw when array size approached usize. They proved it would sort, they didn't prove it won't experience UB. Or maybe you prove it has no UB if there are no hardware errors (there are hardware errors), etc.

The unbeatable quantum cryptography was beat in one instance because the attacker abused the properties of detectors to get the signal without alerting either sides of the conversation.

https://www.theregister.com/2010/09/01/quantum_crypto_hack/

> Or maybe you mean "specification" to be some kind of informal description?

I read somewhere that the secret to hacker mindset is that they ignore what the model is, but look at what is actually there. If they behaved as spec writers expected, they would have never been able to break in.

Reminds me of a place I worked. The doors were this heavy mass of wood and metal that would unlock with a loud thud (from several huge rods holding it secure). This was done to formally pass some ISO declaration for document security. The thing is any sane robber would just easily bypass the door by breaking the plaster walls on either side.

At least we can stop writing code made of plaster for start.

[yusina]

> Sure but proof itself might have gaps itself.

Then it's an incorrect proof. In the pen-and-paper era, that was a thing, but nowadays proofs are machine-checked and don't have "gaps" anymore.

Or your assumptions have a bug. That's exactly what I mean with specifications being potentially flawed, since all assumptions must be baked into the formal specification. If hardware can fail then that must be specified, otherwise it's assumed to not fail ever. This never ends, and that's the whole point here.

I suppose we are trying to say the same thing, just not with the same terminology.

[uecker]

>> Software written in Rust also experiences safety issues.

> Yes. And?

You claimed otherwise.