At first I was sceptical, but after a few thought, I came to the solution that, if uutils can do the same stuff, is/stays actively maintained and more secure/safe (like memory bugs), this is a good change.

What are your thoughts abouth this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I fear moving away from GPL that moving to Rust seems to bring, but Rust does fix real memory issues.

Take the recent rsync vulnerabilities for example.

https://www.cyberciti.biz/linux-news/cve-2024-12084-rsyn-security-urgent-update-needed-on-unix-bsd-systems/#more-2215

At least this one in a Rust implementation of rsync would have very likely been avoided:

CVE-2024-12085 – A flaw was found in the rsync daemon which could be triggered when rsync compares file checksums. This flaw allows an attacker to manipulate the checksum length (s2length) to cause a comparison between a checksum and uninitialized memory and leak one byte of uninitialized stack data at a time. Info Leak via uninitialized Stack contents defeats ASLR.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I fear moving away from GPL that moving to Rust seems to bring, but Rust does fix real memory issues.

    So you prefer closed-source code to potentially unsafe open-source code?

    Take the recent rsync vulnerabilities for example.

    Already fixed, in software that's existed for years and is used by millions. But Oh no, memory issues, let's rewrite that in ! will surely result in a better outcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Already fixed, in software that's existed for years and is used by millions. But Oh no, memory issues, let's rewrite that in ! will surely result in a better outcome.

    Rsync is great software, but the C language fates it to keep having memory issues in spite of its skilled developers.

    Preventing a bug from being possible > fixing a bug.

  • source
  • parent