trophy-case VS cryptography

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.

Congratulations to the authors, this was a feature that was dearly missing from pyca/cryptography. It took a long time to get right.

For the history: https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/2381

Some context:

- The cryptography dependency used by the current release of mitmproxy has a CVE related to an OpenSSL vulnerability (https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/security/advisories/GHS...)

- The main branch of mitmproxy has already upgraded to the latest version of the cryptography package

- The author of the package does not believe the CVE impacts users of mitmproxy so a release including this commit has not been made

Also you'll use https://github.com/pyca/cryptography

first, I did see a correlation between an endpoint being heavily hit in a given time window, and an increase of memory usage that didn't went down afterwards. The endpoint didn't do much so I went through every instruction - is a global variable appended indefinitely ? Is a cache decorator growing without a limit set ? Do I use a 3rd party that has a known issue ? Turns out, it was using cryptography, so I looked up known issues. Saw an issue about a leak when using load_pem_x509_certificate https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/4833 - which I used ! I could fortunately just upgrade the library

Après le kerfuffle du paquet de cryptographie cette semaine (https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/5771), J’ai passé en revue l’état des outils de gestion des dépendances en Python.

> A big problem with Rust, long-term, is that the kind of programs that really need it are somewhat out of today's mainstream. It's not that useful for webcrap. It's not that useful for phone apps. The AI people use Jupyter notebooks and Python to drive code on GPUs.

One thing this is missing is that Rust is useful for libraries callable by many different languages. You may or may not want to use it to build an actual Web app (I personally think it's a solid choice, but reasonable people can disagree). But for building, say, the Python cryptography library [1], which is used as a part of "webcrap" and Jupyter notebooks, Rust is clearly an excellent option. Nobody is going to build core Python infrastructure in Go or Node, and there will always be a need for plumbing libraries.

[1]: https://github.com/pyca/cryptography

Also, I see more and more examples where rust gets included in different technologies using FFI. Ie for python https://github.com/pyca/cryptography for security/performance critical pieces.

> I am curious. Could you give some more context?

Probably talking about this: https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/5771

You will be hard pressed to find a cryptography library that doesn't depend on openssl. Fortunately openssl bindings can be installed on Windows. One of the more popular libraries for python is cryptography, but it does depend on libssl.