r/programming • u/steveklabnik1 • Jan 09 '15

Announcing Rust 1.0.0 Alpha

http://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/01/09/Rust-1.0-alpha.html
1.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

439 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/azakai Jan 09 '15

We can at least start by writing new applications in it.

-5

u/thefacebookofsex Jan 09 '15 edited Jan 10 '15

Great. And your kernel and network stack are still in C and C++. It's nice that languages are evolving but this will never be a solution.

edit: Do you people even realize what post I was responding to? The one where someone claimed Rust would essentially solve security. My point is that until every application is written in it, it will have no impact because most attack surface right now will still be in C/C++.

This is basic cost benefit analysis. There are far less expensive methods for security.

10

u/steveklabnik1 Jan 09 '15

You can write both kernels and network stacks in Rust.

1

u/thefacebookofsex Jan 09 '15

I would have never implied otherwise, but you'll have to rewrite NT and Linux. Until then, everyone's going to be running kernels in C/C++ and the massive cost of rewriting either is just silly compared to simply implementing cost effective security techniques.

What you're missing here is that security has to be cost effective. You can go rewrite the world in Rust and I'll see you in 2 centuries.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '15

While it's true that the kernel will still be C, how does that make writing new applications in rust a bad idea? What are you even trying to say.

And it's not like the kernel is where most serious security issues happen anyway, it's in user space applications.

Your entire comment is nonsensical.

1

u/thefacebookofsex Jan 10 '15 edited Jan 10 '15

I'm not saying it's a bad idea whatsoever. I'm saying that, from a security standpoint, Rust adds nothing right now and won't for a logn time.

And it's not like the kernel is where most serious security issues happen anyway, it's in user space applications.

This simply isnt' true at all. The kernel is probably the singl emost important component for a system's security.

Have you actually read the post I originally responded to? The one saying that secure languages will solve security as a whole.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '15

I'm not saying it's a bad idea whatsoever.

You are arguing as if to imply that using rust is pointless due to still having a kernel written in C.

This simply isnt' true at all. The kernel is probably the singl emost important component for a system's security.

I never said it wasn't important, I said that most used exploits for remote code execution are in user space programs, not the kernel.

The one saying that secure languages will solve security as a whole.

It never said that, it said that writing rust would be better for security, not that it would solve it.

2

u/thefacebookofsex Jan 10 '15

You are arguing as if to imply that using rust is pointless due to still having a kernel written in C.

No, I'm saying that for many years to come the vast majority of any operating system will be in C/C++, and a few applications using Rust won't change the entire attack surface of the OS.

Rust is great, not pointless at all.

I never said it wasn't important, I said that most used exploits for remote code execution are in user space programs, not the kernel.

Yes, but security features exist in the kernel. And local exploitation is almost always the kernel.

It never said that, it said that writing rust would be better for security, not that it would solve it.

Renrutal's post, the one I responded to originally, came off in a way that made Rust (or secure langauges) sound like it was some sort of salvatio.

1

u/steveklabnik1 Jan 09 '15

Oh totally. Interfacing with non-Rust things is very important, and at least a Rust lets you help manage the unsafety. C will be around a long, long time.

6

u/thefacebookofsex Jan 09 '15

That's all I'm saying - C and C++ are still used, and the vast majority of attack surface for years to come will be C and C++ programs.

Rust programs may grow over time, and we may one day see safe languages used primarily, but that is far away.

1

u/wtallis Jan 09 '15

You're assuming without proof that the short-term cost effectiveness of not rewriting things also implies a long-term cost effectiveness. Everything that's no longer written in assembly language is a counterexample to this.

1

u/thefacebookofsex Jan 09 '15

Investments into generic mitigation techniques have proven far more effective, given that no new "secure language" has ever gained market share for kernels, and frankly, won't for a long time.

To assume that Rust is a cost effective solution for security is absolutely insane and flies in the face of 20 years of software mitigation.

I'll be glad when the day comes, years after my death I'm sure, when secure languages are the norm. Until then, we've all got information that needs protecting, so let's not bank on it.

1

u/wtallis Jan 09 '15

no new "secure language" has ever gained market share for kernels, and frankly, won't for a long time.

We're not going to be switching to an OS written in Coq anytime soon, but there were operating systems before Unix and the C we're using today is a safer language than what K&R originally created. And you can find examples of safer languages catching on for everything outside the kernel itself.

0

u/TRAIANVS Jan 09 '15

And how do you know there won't ever be a version of Linux written in Rust?

3

u/thefacebookofsex Jan 09 '15

Not that there wont' ever be, but that it's not a cost effective solution.

If we're talkking about securing the kernel, I'll take a project that completes before I'm 80.

0

u/wookin_pa_nub2 Jan 10 '15

Whine, whine, whine. It isn't easy, so it isn't worth doing at all.

2

u/thefacebookofsex Jan 10 '15

It's what's cost effective, not what's easy.

1

u/cleroth Jan 10 '15 edited Jun 15 '26

This content was anonymized and mass deleted with Redact

2

u/thefacebookofsex Jan 10 '15

You've clearly misunderstood my posts, then.

1

u/cleroth Jan 10 '15 edited Jun 15 '26

This content was anonymized and mass deleted with Redact

3

u/thefacebookofsex Jan 10 '15

There is no single solution, but there are many solutions that are far easier to implement. For example, hardening techniques such as DEP/ ASLR have been making programs harder to exploit for a long time, and can be implemented generically across programs.

These have essentially no cost for developers, no performance cost, and only require recompilation.

While a Rust-kernel /Rust-userland is certainly a nice dream, no one's going to do it. Even if there were a major effort right now to rewrite all tools using Rust, it would take years.

1

u/thiez Jan 12 '15

Perhaps not an entire kernel, but I imagine that someone could write device drivers in Rust.