Curl seems to becoming one of the favourite things to demo AI finding vulns.
Curl is going to end up incredibly secure.
Curl is going to end up incredibly secure.
SQLite also has a very good reputation. I vaguely recall hearing about one SQLite vulnerability discovered via AI, but I thought it turned out to be a nothingburger. A quick search turned up CVE-2025-6965[0,1], published on 2025-07-15, which affects SQLite < 3.50.2 (versions published before 2025-05-29[2]).
I'm not much of a security nerd, but my naive reading of this implies that it was already known and fixed as of the time of the CVE; in other words, the AI discovery didn't seem particularly helpful (though one could argue that it did successfully discover a CVE).
Has AI found many/any other vulnerabilities in SQLite?
[0] https://cybersecuritynews.com/sqlite-0-day-vulnerability/
If even Daniel Stenberg can't consistently write safe C code, I think we can assume that nobody can. Either you switch to a memory-safe language like Rust, or you adopt a high-cost runtime checker like Fil-C, or you'll have to live with a never-ending series of memory safety vulnerabilities.
The "you're holding it wrong" crowd has been claiming that memory safety bugs are a skill issue for ages now, and that the issue is overblown and can be solved by having programmers suck less.
Curl provides the counterexample to this. Its main developer seems to be quite skilled, as reiterated by the various AI audits it is a very solid codebase, yet it still suffers from memory safety vulnerabilities. If the "you're holding it wrong" crowd is right, we're faced with a contradiction. Is Curl secretly a poor-quality codebase which has managed to fool the community until now? Is Daniel Stenberg uniquely susceptible to writing memory safety bugs, negating his otherwise-seemingly-decent programming skills? Is he perhaps intentionally introducing memory safety bugs to make C look bad?
In other words: if memory safety bugs are indeed a different breed altogether and are completely avoidable if we try hard enough, why are they still hitting Curl?
I posit that they are not: if you are writing unsafe code, you will introduce memory safety bugs. You can avoid them altogether by switching to inherently-safe languages like Go or Kotlin, by catching them at compile time like Rust, or by catching them at runtime like Fil-C. Or you can ignore the problem altogether and keep writing C like we've been doing for decades, but that means you will keep shipping memory safety vulnerabilities - like we've been doing for decades.
This is highly dependent on what kind of software you are writing.
On the one end, there's stuff like an image format parser in a browser -- a pure function from untrusted bytes to untrusted pixels. In a memory-safe language, it's pretty hard for such code to have vulnerabilities (other than DoS) in such code -- you'd have to explicitly go out of your way to do weird stuff (open unrelated files, start subprocesses, ...). Simple logic bugs can only lead the wrong pixels or panics. But when memory safety bugs are possible, remote code execution is common in such code. Memory-safe languages make a massive difference here!
On the other end, you have stuff like a javascript JIT compiler, which turns untrusted javascript into trusted machine code -- here pretty much any logic bug leading to "wrong output" can be turned into a remote code execution exploit. Memory safe languages are not very useful here.
Securing code you/your org did not write and programming for yourself/your org are just fundamentally different jobs.
Of course! But in practice all potential bugs are neatly wrapped in small and easy-to-audit "unsafe" blocks, rather than silently lurking all over your codebase.
You could indeed wrap your entire codebase into one giant unsafe statement and write it like C. But, as the actix-web discussion showed years ago, the Rust community very much prefers restricting unsafe to the absolute bare minimum possible. You wouldn't write, say, a mail server in mostly-unsafe Rust for the same reason that you wouldn't write it in mostly-inline-assembly: you gain nothing, and in return it'll probably blow up in your face sooner rather than later.
Rust has an escape hatch because we're all adults. The big difference is that its footgun has an explicit safety latch, so you have to deliberately opt in to blowing your own foot off.