Head to https://squarespace.com/thelinuxexperiment to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code thelinuxexperiment Grab a brand new laptop or desktop running Linux: https:/...
There are no security risks with C when you write good code. The reason we are seeing a lot of security vulnerabilities is because prior to about 10 years ago security wasn’t considered that important.
I’m not saying Rust is bad. (It is generally good) The thing to remember is that Rust also can have security issues. What we need is skilled programmers who understand security.
Sorry, but this mindset is hurting both Linux and security in general.
The reason we are seeing a lot of security vulnerabilities is because prior to about 10 years ago security wasn’t considered that important.
This is frankly quite obviously false. Microsoft started taking security more seriously around the release of Windows 2000. Are you saying the Linux kernel developers took another 15 years to realize security is important?
Security research shows that new code is more prone to common vulnerabilities than old code is. While old code may have been designed with weak (or no) security considerations, those are well-mitigated by now. On the contrary, new code still regularly contains exploitable memory safety issues that slip by review.
What we need is skilled programmers who understand security.
We have skilled programmers who understand security. Those also understand that we need more than that.
Continuing to use C doesn’t merely require skilled programmers, it requires programmers that never make any mistake ever. That’s an infeasible standard for any human to uphold, hence why C is considered a risk.
@arendjr@possiblylinux127 eh, in reality, The reason we are seeing a lot of security vulnerabilities is because:
A: it is the most used OS in the world, hackers & pirates… have 100 reasons to pirate winlol, for example imagine having 1 B$ worth of games on your storage drive, everyone would be killing to even have a sniff
B: it gives the feeling of the thrill of challenge when you decide to tweak, because it is close-sourced so it by default enables a few tweaks, all can be corrected
There are no security risks with C when you write good code. The reason we are seeing a lot of security vulnerabilities is because prior to about 10 years ago security wasn’t considered that important.
I’m not saying Rust is bad. (It is generally good) The thing to remember is that Rust also can have security issues. What we need is skilled programmers who understand security.
Sorry, but this mindset is hurting both Linux and security in general.
This is frankly quite obviously false. Microsoft started taking security more seriously around the release of Windows 2000. Are you saying the Linux kernel developers took another 15 years to realize security is important?
Security research shows that new code is more prone to common vulnerabilities than old code is. While old code may have been designed with weak (or no) security considerations, those are well-mitigated by now. On the contrary, new code still regularly contains exploitable memory safety issues that slip by review.
We have skilled programmers who understand security. Those also understand that we need more than that.
Continuing to use C doesn’t merely require skilled programmers, it requires programmers that never make any mistake ever. That’s an infeasible standard for any human to uphold, hence why C is considered a risk.
@arendjr @possiblylinux127 eh, in reality, The reason we are seeing a lot of security vulnerabilities is because:
A: it is the most used OS in the world, hackers & pirates… have 100 reasons to pirate winlol, for example imagine having 1 B$ worth of games on your storage drive, everyone would be killing to even have a sniff
B: it gives the feeling of the thrill of challenge when you decide to tweak, because it is close-sourced so it by default enables a few tweaks, all can be corrected