this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
133 points (87.6% liked)
Open Source
29827 readers
457 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can you elaborate?
I was under the impression that there was some kind of consensus around rust being one of the safest languages to use. However, I've seen comments about rust being bad pop up in a few threads lately but they never explain why they think so.
You're talking about using the language and preventing errors. That's less about security and more about preventing errors.
I'm talking about the supply chain, watering hole attacks, etc. Crates does not cryptographically verify the authenticity or anything that it downloads.
The only language that I'm aware of that has a dependency manager that has cryptographic auth of everything it downloads is Java's Maven. Everything else is vulnerable, rust included.