[1] perhaps the intended meaning of the title was "fuzzing shows that memory-unsafe languages are untenable", but that's certainly not the meaning of the current title
> perhaps the intended meaning of the title was "fuzzing shows that memory-unsafe languages are untenable", but that's certainly not the meaning of the current title
No, fuzzing makes these languages untenable because it provides a tool for automating memory unsafety issues. Without mature fuzzing tools, most of these issues can remain unfound, but fuzzing surfaces them — and their potential for exploitation — rather easily.
It's a bit of a "security by obscurity" thing, but I think there's a point to this view: fuzzing takes the existing crack / fault of memory unsafety[0] and blasts it open so wide you can get a truck through.
<Pointy-haired Boss>Fuzzing is now forbidden in our offices. Next problem?</phb>
It could be seen as a form of editorializing though, so it could be argued that it should be changed to the original just based on that.
FWIW it's the title / tagline the author themselves used when they posted the article on twitter, and I thought it was much clearer than the "official" title of "Fuzz rising".
Indeed. I prefer this title over "Fuzz rising" as well.