advisory-db VS Rudra

You might also want to add this to https://github.com/rustsec/advisory-db so that cargo audit and Dependabot surface it.

The behavior of not extracting outside the specified directory has been the default since forever in Rust's tar. And then it had two RUSTSEC advisories for not handling this correctly in certain corner cases. The latest one in 2021.

cargo-audit only checks for known issues reported to a vulnerability database.

However, I keep getting this error when running cargo audit bin ~/.cargo/bin/*, even if I replace * with a specific binary: Fetching advisory database from `https://github.com/RustSec/advisory-db.git` Loaded 467 security advisories (from C:\Users\jonah\.cargo\advisory-db) Updating crates.io index error: I/O operation failed: The system cannot find the path specified. (os error 3) I'm on Windows 10.

I usually open an issue asking if the crate is still maintained. If there isn't a response for a decent amount of time (like multiple months) and the crate is somewhat popular then it could be worth opening an unmaintained advisory in the advisory-db

Here is the visualization of RustSec Advisory Database. I hope it will be helpful. If you need any more charts, feel free to comment.

FWIW the RustSec database is still not synced into the Github databse on a regular basis, even though they did an initial import of it. So the cargo audit github action is still relevant.

If you’re writing unsafe Rust, you might consider cargo miri and Rudra as additional static analyzers which can find bugs rustc won’t

In my opinion, much of Rust-specific PhD research likely to be publishable and/or high impact either falls into verification (e.g Prusti, Cruesot) or bug-finding (e.g. Rudra, SyRust). Ralf Jung and his collaborators have done exceptional work in the verification space.

Perhaps Rudra as well.

Haven't used it myself, but I remembered a tool called Rudra was recently posted about in the sub

Not sure proves your point, but maybe doesn't disprove your point strongly enough. I am not qualified to argue from experience about how Rust is ideally suited in the ways you think it is not. But from everything I have seen, it can do a whole lot of what C++ is also good at. Rust safety is not all or nothing and a codebase could definitely prioritize ergonomics over correctness.

Two things that I saw in the last couple weeks that might start to sway you.

https://github.com/sslab-gatech/Rudra#readme

GhostCell: Separating Permissions from Data in Rust