Legit question: When Rust accidentally permits a program with memory unsafety, should that have a CVE?
-
-
Replying to @sgrif
there was a situation last year when we had to think about this -- a core API was thought to be broken (it wasn't) because there were memory issues in that API showing up very rarely in Firefox crash reports
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ManishEarth
Assuming that panned out, the bigger question for me is whether that would be a CVE in Firefox, or the language that promised to prevent it in the first place (or both). But then that leads to the question of should it be a CVE for the language even if no app was known affected
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sgrif
It would not have been a CVE for firefox most likely because it seemed unexploitable But it could have been. It would have been a CVE for rust and some applications using it where that API was user-facing in a way that *was* exploitable
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ManishEarth
Gotcha. So do you think the two match_default_binding issues are at all justifiable for one?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @ManishEarth
1.26.2's bug and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/51686 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sounded like it was possible to violate memory safety w/ that issue, but even if not 1.26.2 definitely yes
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.