207
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
207 points (97.7% liked)
Linux
16076 readers
34 users here now
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
WOW. No, it would make it improbable. It's not like there can't be zero-days for Rust, bud. This particular attack vector deals with memory handling, and sure, Rust's main feature is memory security and management. Doesn't mean there aren't bugs to exploit there.
https://linuxsecurity.com/features/rise-of-rust-based-malware
Did you even read the article you posted? This is about malware written in Rust being harder to analyze (or notice), not software written in Rust having vulnerabilities...
🤦 It's not necessarily about bugs in Rust-lang, though you can lookup CVEs if you want. The point is that ANY software, by default, will have bugs and exploits. Doesn't matter if it's Rust or C. You can exploit at the core, or at implementation. It's just matter of time and effort, as they say.
Just flat out saying Rust, or software written in Rust is be default is secure, is a fool's assertion. Sure it's LESS LIKELY to have a memory exploit, but that's where that assertion ends.