cargo-crev VS cargo-msrv

In other cases it may be more documented, such as Golangs baked-in telemetry.

There should be better ways to check these problems. The best I have found so far is Crev https://github.com/crev-dev/crev/. It's most used implementation is Cargo-crev https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev, but hopefully it will become more required to use these types of tools. Certainty and metrics about how many eyes have been on a particular script, and what expertise they have would be a huge win for software.

The main problem the author is talking about is actually about version updates, which in Maven as well as crates.io is up to each lib's author, and is not curated in any way.

There's no technical solution to that, really. Do you think Nexus Firewall can pick up every exploit, or even most? How confident of that are you, and what data do you have to back that up? I don't have any myself, but would not be surprised at all if "hackers" can easily work around their scanning.

However, I don't have a better approach than using scanning tools like Nexus, or as the author proposes, use a curated library repository like Debian is doing (which hopefully gets enough eyeballs to remain secure) or the https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev project (manually reviewed code) also mentioned. It's interesting that they mention C/C++ just rely on distros providing dynamic libs instead which means you don't even control your dependencies versions, some distro does (how reliable is the distro?)... I wonder if that could work for other languages or if it's just as painful as it looks in the C world.

For instance, the worst company imaginable may be in charge of software that was once FOSS, and they may change absolutely nothing about it, so it should be fine. However, if a small update is added that does something bad, you should know about it immediately.

The solution seems to be much more clearly in the realm of things like crev: https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev/

Wherein users can get a clear picture of what dependencies are used in the full chain, and how they have been independently reviewed for security and privacy. That's the real solution for the future. A quick score that is available upon display everytime you upgrade, with large warnings for anything above a certain threshold.

The metrics on crates.io are a useful sniff test, but ultimately you need to review things yourself, or trust some contributors and reviewers. Some projects, like cargo crev or cargo vet can help with the process.

You can use cargo-geiger or cargo-crev to check for whether people you trusted (e.g. u/jonhoo ) trust this crate.

There is a similar idea being explored with https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev - you trust a reviewer who reviews crates for trustworthiness, as well as other reviewers.

[cargo-crev](https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev) looks like a good step in the right direction but not really commonly used.

'cargo crev' makes this kind of workflow possible: https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev

The crev folks themselves are no fans of PGP but need a way to security identify that you are in fact the review author, so that's where the id generation comes in. Ultimately crev is just a bunch of repos with text files you sign with IDs. The nice property is that you can chain these together into a web of trust and it's unfortunate that vet doesn't just use the same signed files on repos model as a foundation because even if they don't trust anyone else, we could turn around and trust them.

What this tool say? https://github.com/foresterre/cargo-msrv

I'm working on cargo-marv.

Before getting overcome by despair, have a look at cargo-msrv -- this little gem of a tool figures it all out for you!

I'll be adding a 'minimal' output format to cargo-msrv for use in scripts. I'll also be updating the book, and inch closer towards releasing v0.16.

First commit 2 months ago, started with edition 2021. https://hg.sr.ht/~cyplo/legdur/browse/Cargo.toml?rev=ca11815...

Have you tried compiling something less than bleeding edge, with a year old compiler, or are you picking projects specifically to "showcase" the supposed failings of the Rust compiler?

Many libraries in the ecosystem have a MSRV (minimum support rust version) guarantee, with compile-time shims to enable newer features if a more recent version is detected.

You can pin your dependencies to those versions (and if they don't have an explicit MSRV, just pin it to a version by date or by running https://github.com/foresterre/cargo-msrv on the project to find the effective MSRV).

You can cargo install specific versions of a binary crate, and if they move to the 2021 edition, or use a recently stabilized standard library function or w/e, you can simply choose to install a specific version, that would work with your distro's rustc/cargo.

I'm not even talking about the completely valid, but last resort strategy of many non-bleeding edge distro package maintainers, of simply creating a .patch file and applying it. In legdur's case, --- edition = "2021" +++ edition = "2018" on Cargo.toml would probably do the trick. For libraries/binaries you control, you can use https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/overriding-depende... and https://github.com/itmettkeDE/cargo-patch.

Giving up after the first minor roadblock and crying bloody murder is intellectually lazy.

Looks helpful though it doesn't seem to address when you don't have a Cargo.lock. I've created an issue for this.

I'll be switching over the CLI of cargo-msrv, from Clap's builder methods to the attribute macro. I hope this will simplify the configuration, as my Config and ConfigBuilder structs (which were build from Clap's ArgMatches) was growing fast, and becoming slightly unorganized. With the attribute macro, the config will be constructed directly by code generated by the macro. The mostly saves one intermediate step, and a lot of boilerplate.

Some combination of cargo-outdated and cargo-msrv could probably do this in a slightly more manual fashion.