[quchen]

People (all people) are fundamentally unsafe, not languages. It may be harder to write safe code in some languages than others, but that arguably doesn't make the language unsafe. Most certainly though, it does not make it "fundamentally" unsafe.

[nmrm]

Browse through the National Vulnerability Database, and write down the language of each bug.

Discounting bad PHP, a huge majority of bugs are in C/C++ code. And "past popularity" isn't a good explanation, because a lot of the software is fairly recent.

So, the following isn't an opinion. It's simply a matter of observable fact. If you write in C/C++, you are far more likely to introduce security vulnerabilities than in other languages; therefore, unless there's a pressing reason to use these languages, don't.

[taeric]

You are making the claim that there would not be an increase in representation of other languages if they were more represented in the wild. I don't know how you could prove that.

That is, I don't think this exercise really shows what you think it does. Consider, if 90% of the software out there is in c/c++, and you had equal representation of language to vulnerability, then you would expect 90% of the vulnerabilities to be in c/c++. This would not mean that you are more likely to write bugs in those languages. In fact, unless I misunderstand, it would simply mean you are just as likely to have bugs there as otherwise.

Right?

[nmrm]

You missed the point, and your characterization of my claim is way off.

1. A huge number of vulnerabilities affect C/C++ programs, almost all of which are memory based.

2. Memory-managed languages take care of this for you.

3. Therefore, C/C++ shouldn't be a default choice in domains where a managed language does just as well (a separate question).

Everything else is tangential.

But here are some reasons why your second paragraph is dangerously wrong (and why my claim was not as you characterize):

1. It only applies if we assume a uniform distribution of security effort across languages.

2. It only applies if we assume that c/c++ is being used for the same class of applications programs written in other languages, or that the applications have similar attack surfaces.

3. It only applies if we assume a uniform distribution of security effort over all code regardless of age.

and so on...

And also, 90% of code -- especially relatively recent code -- is not written in c/c++.

[taeric]

Look, I don't even really disagree with your hypothesis. I just question whether counting all of the CVEs and "discounting bad PHP, a huge majority of bugs are in C/C++ code" proves much. Other than the majority of attacked applications are c/c++. (well, likely they are php, but we are tossing that for some reason.)

Especially if you follow that with the claim of "If you write in C/C++, you are far more likely to introduce security vulnerabilities than in other languages." In order for that claim to stick, you have to show not just that there are more CVEs against c/c++ than other languages, but that there is the same effort spent in attacking non c/c++ programs. Right? (Or, am I misreading a claim on that?)

Sure, if you reduce that to "memory vulnerabilities", it is a true statement. However, you did not make that reduction. As you point out in your counter #2, there are plenty of other vulnerabilities out there. What makes you think people are more likely to avoid those than they are memory vulnerabilities in c/c++?

As for the 90% of code not being c/c++, what is the point? Unless you can show that they receive the same level of attack as the c/c++, you can not really use that to claim that they are inherently more secure. Worse, your throwing of php under the bus just shows that recent languages don't do enough to prevent security mistakes.

Heaven help you if you throw in XSS and friends. Suddenly one of the darlings of the tech industry at the moment, javascript, is rocketing to the top of the list for security blunders.

[runeks]

> It's simply a matter of observable fact. If you write in C/C++, you are far more likely to introduce security vulnerabilities than in other languages; therefore, unless there's a pressing reason to use these languages, don't.

And in the case of crypto code, one could argue that there is a very good reason to use C/C++: to prevent timing attacks.

[stcredzero]

How hard would it be to develop a fast memory safe language that eliminates timing attacks?

[arh68]

That seems like a great idea.

Timing attacks work when code tries to be fast, taking shortcuts where possible. There's a reason we talk big-O instead of big-Theta: we gladly accept when an algorithm finishes early. This is, in this case, highly undesirable. Shortcuts are great, everywhere but crypto; not unlike recursion being great, unless it's embedded.

A language where every expression takes constant-time to compute seems like a solution. No short-circuiting, no variable runtimes. Don't use sorting algorithms like insertion/quicksort where best-case & worst-case are very different; use selection/merge where best-case = worst-case = average-case. Use constant-time hash functions. Caching is a very prevalent (and somewhat invisible) shortcut that needs to be solved (how can a language disable caching?).

Obviously this isn't fast but you can't have both.

[stcredzero]

Obviously this isn't fast but you can't have both.

Merge sort is still pretty fast. It isn't the fastest. But safe > fast when it comes to reliability and security.

[runeks]

That's a very good question. I think it's possible that the recent revelations will at least spur some interest in researching this. It seems like we need it badly.

[iopq]

You can imagine a language that's memory safe. In fact, these languages exist today.