Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

But again, isn't that the OS failing to protect user files rather than an issue of memory unsafety?



That's another aspect of it. Please see this answer of mine:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27642630

In short, memory unsafety makes programmer bugs exploitable, instead of generally just failing.


I understand what you are saying, and I understand that this is a real security issue in modern computing. However I would put the question to you in a different way:

Let's say we have two programs, A and B.

Program A by its very nature needs to have write access to the system's file permissions in order to fulfill its core purpose.

Program B only needs R/W access to a sqlite database installed in a specific directory, and the ability to make network calls.

I would agree that for program A, a memory-safe language can provide a very real benefit, given the potential risk compromising this program could expose the system to.

Would you agree that if a buffer overflow exploit in Program B can be used to compromise the system outside of the required resources for that program, this is a failing of the OS and not the programming language?


I agree with that — not having buffer overflows is a good to have but not sufficient thing for security. MAC and sandboxes are a necessity as well, eg SELinux can solve your proposed problem with program A and B.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: