rofi-pass VS trophy-case

Looking at the instructions and information on GitHub - https://github.com/carnager/rofi-pass I am somewhat confused.

It's supposed to be cross platform standalone rofi-pass for my Windows. On Linux I use the original one and it's great

I made this post a few weeks ago about tessen's initial release. Since then, I've added a few features that might've prevented rofi-pass users from switching to Wayland based compositors (I was one of them).

Pass combined with rofi-pass

I've made a script called tessen which is, more or less, a replacement of rofi-pass but for Wayland. It can use bemenu or the wayland fork of rofi. It relies on wtype for autotyping instead of using ydotool because ydotool needs a daemon running with root privileges.

rofi-pass is also very nice you already use rofi

Easy to sync because it's a git repo, supports every type of MFA / key under the sun (well, everything that GPG does, because it's basically a frontend for GPG). Easy to programmatically search / create scripts for (I use rofi-pass). Easy to install on a vps and access from anywhere. Most importantly, does one thing and does it well, Unix philosophy.

You could check cargo-fuzz trophy case, which is a list of issues that have been found via fuzzing.

I've added it to the trophy case.

That said, what's present in what quantities under what circumstances in the Rust fuzzing trophy case does a pretty good job of illustrating how effective the Rust compiler is at ruling out entire classes of bugs.

The same fuzzing techniques applied to Rust yielded a lot of bugs as well. But in Rust's case only 7 out of 340 fuzzer-discovered bugs, or 2%, were memory corruption issues. Naturally, all of the memory corruption bugs were in unsafe code.

https://github.com/rust-fuzz/trophy-case has like 70 of my issues in it, including the nine minidump bugs

If you have found any bugs with this tool, perhaps add them to the Rust fuzz trophy case?

Source: https://github.com/rust-fuzz/trophy-case (over 40 of those are just from me).

But to bring some data, check out the fuzz trophy case. It shows that failures in Rust are most often assertions/panics (equivalent to C++ exception) with memory corruption being relatively rare (it's not never—Rust isn't promising magic—but it's a significant change).

You need to read the list more carefully.

• The list is not for Rust itself, but every program every written in Rust. By itself it doesn't mean much, unless you compare prevalence of issues among Rust programs to prevalence of issues among C programs. For some context, see how memory unsafety is rare compared to assertions and uncaught exceptions: https://github.com/rust-fuzz/trophy-case

• Many of the memory-unsafety issues are on the C FFI boundary, which is unsafe due to C lacking expressiveness about memory ownership of its APIs (i.e. it shows how dangerous is to program where you don't have the Rust borrow checker checking your code).

• Many bugs about missing Send/Sync or evil trait implementations are about type-system loopholes that prevented compiler from catching code that was already buggy. C doesn't have these guarantees in the first place, so lack of them is not a CVE for C, but just how C is designed.