how would rust fix most of those issues?
they're logic bugs
they're logic bugs
My understanding is that Java doesn't allow this directly, but has adjacent historical deficiencies (e.g., not allowing exhaustive enumeration handling until recently).
Rust isn't just memory-safety. The type system also coaxes developers towards eliminating some types of logic bugs.
Not all, granted, but it does move the needle.
(and I say this as someone who grew up on SML)
I didn't say it didn't help at all, I said I wouldn't expect it to make a significant improvement over Java
(and it's hardly the strongest type system with "developer ergonomics")
Sometimes the errors wind up being nasty, but I've also gotten better at trusting that the compiler is giving me helpful info, even if it's a huge message. And usually those errors indicate some library invariant that I've missed that the type system is enforcing.
while it's nice that the rest of the world is slowly waking up to type systems functional programmers have been bleating on about for the past four decades
... having read through the first couple of pages of bc vulns: even a much stronger type system than rust provides wouldn't appear to help very much in this specific example
however if someone wants to rewrite OpenSSL in Rust that would be a massive massive improvement
You mean rustls?
If you ever get the impression that I'm underestimating the complexity of a typical TLS implementation, I promise you that I'm not. I speak to improvements, not panaceas.
Until the end of last year, I was one of the security engineers that the s2n team at AWS consulted on potential security issues. You will never hear me say anything will magically fix all our problems. Especially with TLS.
However, Rust does bring a lot to the table, so I feel I'm allowed to be excited about not reviewing another X.509 library written in C.