advisory-db VS owning-ref-rs

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.

Increasingly feeling that Rust is like Elm: a language with novel ideas, teaching valuable lessons (a vocabulary for teaching and checking thread safety, documenting exclusive vs. shared mutability in the type system, arguably a vocabulary for teaching and checking memory safety, though that comes at a steep cost), yet so stubborn the community treats its values (avoiding shared mutability) as moral judgments of code, and the language and deliberately obstructs writing code outside of approved patterns (single ownership tree, exclusive mutability). struct{Cell...}& doesn't need to be harder to use than C++ struct{T...}*, but Rust keeps it difficult because the community views it as bad code design and wants to keep it hard. And *mut T lacks RAII unlike C++'s unique_ptr, and requires unsafe blocks in every dereference. As a result, people turn to unsound patterns like https://github.com/kimundi/owning-ref-rs, https://github.com/mcoblenz/Bronze/, and https://github.com/emu-rs/snes-apu/blob/master/src/smp.rs#L5....

It's a good language to learn. I hesitate to consider it a replacement for asm/C/C++. Writing rust is hoping that the code you're porting to rust can adapt well to the restrictions, and if not, searching for esoteric and needlessly unsafe/verbose workarounds.

Note that there are other soundness issues that require more fundamental changes to be fixed.

That's a shame. I dug into owning_ref, and it looks like it has an open soundness bug as well.