msquic VS swift-evolution

I referred to sockets as an API design, not to express an opinion on whether you should place your protocol implementations inside or outside the kernel. (Although that’s undeniably an interesting question that by all rights should have been settled by now, but isn’t.)

Even then, I didn’t mean you should reproduce the Berkeley socket API verbatim (ZeroMQ-style); multiple streams per connection does not sound like a particularly good fit to it (although apparently people have managed to fit SCTP into it[1]?). I only meant that with the current mainstream libraries[2,3,4], establishing a QUIC connection and transmitting bytestreams or datagrams over it seems quite a bit more involved than performing the equivalent TCP actions using sockets.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6458

[2] https://quiche.googlesource.com/quiche

[3] https://github.com/microsoft/msquic

[4] https://github.com/litespeedtech/lsquic

The documentation of MS QUIC says it is cross-platform, it should work on Linux, it has a CMake preset for Linux and you can download the prebuilt binary releases for Linux.

Hello HN, my name is Varun, and I am the co-founder of StepSecurity. Here is the backstory about Harden-Runner. We thoroughly researched past software supply chain security incidents. The devastating breaches of SolarWinds, Codecov, and others, have one thing in common – they attacked the CI/ CD pipeline or the build server.

These incidents made it clear that a purpose-built security agent was needed for CI/ CD. While there are numerous agents available for desktops and servers, such as from CrowdStrike and Lacework, none have been tailored specifically to address the unique risks present in CI/CD pipelines.

With the understanding that a specialized solution was needed to secure CI/CD environments, we developed Harden-Runner, an open-source solution tailored specifically for GitHub Actions hosted runners. It can be seamlessly integrated into your workflow by simply adding a step. The agent installation process is also lightning-fast, taking no more than 5 seconds to complete.

Harden-Runner's security agent is designed to closely monitor all aspects of the workflow run, including DNS, network, file, and process events. This allows for real-time identification of any potential security breaches. To prevent incidents like the Codecov breach, where exfiltration of credentials occurred, Harden-Runner allows you to set policies that restrict outbound traffic at both the DNS and network layers. Additionally, we are actively working on implementing further restrictions at the application layer, such as using HTTP verbs and paths, to provide an even more comprehensive security solution.

An excellent example of how Harden-Runner effectively blocks outbound traffic can be found in the following link: https://app.stepsecurity.io/github/microsoft/msquic/actions/.... As you can see, all traffic to unauthorized endpoints is highlighted in red, indicating that it has been blocked; this is because these endpoints are not included in the allowed list defined in the GitHub Actions workflow file, which can be viewed here: https://github.com/microsoft/msquic/blob/aaecb0fac5a3902dd24....

One of the key features of Harden-Runner's monitoring capabilities is its ability to detect any tampering or alteration of files during the build process, similar to the SolarWinds incident. To further enhance security and protect against potential malicious tools or attempts to disable the agent, Harden-Runner includes a disable-sudo mode. This mode effectively disables the use of 'sudo' on the hosted runner, providing an additional layer of protection

Harden-Runner has already been adopted by over 600 open-source repositories: https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/network/depen.... To fully understand the capabilities of Harden-Runner and how it can protect against past supply chain attacks, please try out our attack simulator GitHub repository at https://github.com/step-security/attack-simulator. I would love to hear your feedback.

https://github.com/microsoft/msquic (QUIC / HTTP3)

[A Vision for Embedded Swift](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/visions/e...) has the details on this new build mode and is quite interesting.

> Effectively, there will be two bottom layers of Swift, and the lower one, “non-allocating” Embedded Swift, will necessarily be a more restricted compilation mode (e.g. classes will be disallowed as they fundamentally require heap allocations) and likely to be used only in very specialized use cases. “Allocating” Embedded Swift should allow classes and other language facilities that rely on the heap (e.g. indirect enums).

Also, this seems to maybe hint at the Swift runtime eventually being reimplemented in non-allocating Embedded Swift rather than the C++ (?) that it uses now:

> The Swift runtime APIs will be provided as an implementation that’s optimized for small codesize and will be available as a static library in the toolchain for common CPU architectures. Interestingly, it’s possible to write that implementation in “non-allocating” Baremetal Swift.

I may be out of my depth here as I've only casually used Rust, but this seems similar to Swift's proposed lifetime dependencies[1]. They're not in the type system formally so maybe they're closer to poloneius work

[1]: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/3055becc53a3c3...

Swift recently adopted a region-based approach for safe concurrency that builds on Milano et al’s ideas: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

No, it's not. Refcounting CAN be a garbage collection algorithm, but in Swift it's deterministic and done at compile time. Not to mention recently added support for non-copyable types that enforces unique ownership: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

You can stackallocate buffers with unsafe Swift but it's not exactly fun to use. https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals/0322-temporary-buffers.md

If the docs do not suffice, read the concurrency proposals of Swift Evolution. The authors describe the semantics in a very detailed way there.