Sorry, this tweet is nonsense. The implementation is in assembly because people complain about crypto performance and to avoid side channels. Code was written by competent people who should implement crypto. Language is not "safe", it's safe against some mistakes, not logic bugs.https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/946252676781748224 …
-
I'm not sure about that. There are much more buffer overflow or similar bugs than logic bugs.
Not in crypto code. Crypto code usually has very well defined input/output buffers with either completely fixed or completely arbitrary sizes.
-
-
Crypto code is reimplemented when people discover new ways to attack it. We'd be stuck with non-constant-time implementations, ECDSA reusing randomness, unsafe RSA if we didn't reimplement it.
-
None of those are "new ways to attack", they're (severe) bugs and a symptom that the code was written by someone not qualified to do so. You want *one* implementation done *right* so we can stop worrying about screwups like those.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.