awesome-safety-critical VS codeql-coding-standards

https://awesome-safety-critical.readthedocs.io/en/latest/#so...

awesome-safety-critical: https://awesome-safety-critical.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

FDA > Medical Devices > Cybersecurity:

awesome-safety-critical > Coding Guidelines: https://awesome-safety-critical.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

Rust SAST and DAST tools would be great for all, too.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35565960 :

> Additional lists of static analysis, dynamic analysis, SAST, DAST, and other source code analysis tools: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24511280 https://analysis-tools.dev/tools?languages=c++

https://awesome-safety-critical.readthedocs.io/en/latest/#co...

Predict; software quality, career success

By well-rounded do you mean the ACM Computer Science Curriculum; or a strong liberal arts program which emphasizes critical thinking and effective communication; or Emotional Intelligence, Servant Leadership, and Project Management?

InfoSec; Computer Security > Careers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_security#Careers

The NIST NICE Framework describes Categories (7),

For a low level view, as how the code actually should look like, I found the JPL C coding guidelines very useful. It had an effect on me on how I wrote C after reading it.

Here's a github hosted version https://github.com/stanislaw/awesome-safety-critical/blob/ma...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28709239 :

> From "Ask HN: Is it worth it to learn C in 2020?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21878372 : (which discusses [bounded] memory management)

> There are a number of coding guidelines e.g. for safety-critical systems where bounded running time and resource consumption are essential. *These coding guidelines and standards are basically only available for C, C++, and Ada.*

> awesome-safety-critical > Software safety standards: https://awesome-safety-critical.readthedocs.io/en/latest/#so...

> awesome-safety-critical > Coding Guidelines: https://awesome-safety-critical.readthedocs.io/en/latest/#co...

Critical systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_system

> There are four types of critical systems: safety critical, mission critical, business critical and security critical.

Safety-critical systems > "Software engineering for safety-critical systems" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety-critical_system#Softwar...

awesome-safety-critical lists very many resources for safety critical systems: https://awesome-safety-critical.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

There are many certification programs for software and other STEM fields. One test to qualify applicants does not qualify as a sufficient set of controls for safety critical systems that must be resilient, fault-tolerant, and redundant.

There are heuristics for memory-unsecure C: https://awesome-safety-critical.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

This comment chain appears to have a fundamental misconception of what constitutes safe and what does not.

Automotive standards and automotive coding standards approach safety in a different way than most people think (and given your comments I would say this includes you). If you're curious, you can have a look at some rules to evaluate automotive code that are published here: https://github.com/github/codeql-coding-standards

In short, the rules do not aim to eliminate failure or crashes, but rather make the crash predictable and uniform when a crash occurs so that it can be dealt with. This is further complicated by where and how the automotive manufacture chooses to implement safety controls. It is entirely possible to have a bunch of unsafe code running somewhere on a car, and simply have a small safety shim around said code that prevents the unsafe code from impacting the safe operation of the vehicle.

With that in mind, let's take the example that you use here of emissions cheating software. Emissions is likely not considered safety relevant (it might not even be QM, it just might be some code) and so no safety requirement applies to it. So, no real scrutiny would happen there regardless, at least from a safety perspective. See, validating that software passes a particular safety certification is time and money intensive and manufacturers therefore keep the amount of code that they qualify as safe to a minimum. This means as an example that the infotainment systems of many manufacturers are not safety relevant and no safety function should exist on or interact with them.

A few other things to consider from other threads:

- Telsa doesn't necessarily follow or adhere to safety standards. They (Telsa) are explicitly non-compliant in some cases, and this is partially why there are investigations into their practices.

- Industrial robotics code is just as bad if not worse than most automotive software from what I've seen. As you note, its that these robots are not under manual control

- None of this prevents the software from being open source. There are plenty of safety qualified open source projects. This simply limits who can contribute and how contributions are managed. The main reason why many things in automotive are not open source is that the ECU manufacturer isn't interested in doing so, and the Tier 1/2/3 that does the implementation is even less so.