Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

As has been pointed out repeatedly whenever this statistic is brought up in discussion, that figure is not indicative of much.

And in discussions like this, it's verging on the dishonest - leading with a large number makes readers think that a large difference to bug count will result.

> Around 70 percent of all the vulnerabilities in Microsoft products addressed through a security update each year are memory safety issues; a Microsoft engineer revealed last week at a security conference.

What's the total bug count?

A codebase with 10000 bugs logged against it might have maybe 10[1] that are CVEs, of which, according to that statistic, only 7 would be fixed by moving to a safer language (either GC or Rust or similar).

That's just not enough motivation for switching when the payoff for preventing "70% of CVEs" is so small it may never even happen.

[1] I've worked on C codebases that were developed over a decade, and 1000:1 of all-bugs:memory-safety-bugs is a very conservative ratio. IME, it's been closer to 10000:1.



> that figure is not indicative of much

Microsoft does not appear to agree.

>Mark Russinovich, the chief technology officer of Microsoft Azure, says developers should avoid using C or C++ programming languages in new projects and instead use Rust because of security and reliability concerns.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/programming-languages-its-time...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: