wuffs
smhasher
Our great sponsors
wuffs | smhasher | |
---|---|---|
80 | 30 | |
3,695 | 1,676 | |
1.1% | - | |
9.4 | 7.1 | |
1 day ago | 28 days ago | |
C | C++ | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
wuffs
-
Still no love for JPEG XL: Browser maker love-in snubs next-gen image format
Maybe this is what you are looking for:
https://github.com/google/wuffs
"Wuffs is a memory-safe programming language (and a standard library written in that language) for Wrangling Untrusted File Formats Safely."
-
Just about every Windows/Linux device vulnerable to new LogoFAIL firmware attack
This is one of the reasons I'm a big fan of wuffs[0] - it specifically targets dealing with formats like pictures, safely, and the result drops in to a C codebase to make the compat/migration story easy.
-
Google assigns a CVE for libwebp and gives it a 10.0 score
One example for a safer language developed at Google: https://github.com/google/wuffs
There are already huffman-decoding and some parts of webp algorithms in https://github.com/google/wuffs (language that finds missing bounds checks during compilations). In contrary, according to readme, this language allows to write more optimized code (compared to C). WEBP decoding is stated as a midterm target in the roadmap.
-
The WebP 0day
Specifically, since performance is crucial for this type of work, it should be written in WUFFS. WUFFS doesn't emit bounds checks (as Java does and as Rust would where it's unclear why something should be in bounds at runtime) it just rejects programs where it can't see why the indexes are in-bounds.
https://github.com/google/wuffs
You can explicitly write the same checks and meet this requirement, but chances are since you believe you're producing a high performance piece of software which doesn't need checks you'll instead be pulled up by the fact the WUFFS tooling won't accept your code and discover you got it wrong.
This is weaker than full blown formal verification, but not for the purpose we care about in program safety, thus a big improvement on humans writing LGTM.
-
What If OpenDocument Used SQLite?
> parsing encoded files tends to introduce vulnerabilities
If we are talking about binary formats, now there are systematic solutions like https://github.com/google/wuffs that protect against vulnerabilities. But SQLite is not just a format - it's an evolving ecosystem with constantly added features. And the most prominent issue was not even in core, it was in FTS3. What will SQLite add next? More json-related functions? Maybe BSON? It is useful, but does not help in this situation.
Regarding traces, there are many forensics tools and even books about forensic analysis of SQLite databases. In well-designed format such tools should not exist in the first place. This is hard requirement: if it requires rewriting the whole file - then so be it.
-
CVE-2023-4863: Heap buffer overflow in WebP (Chrome)
I agree that Wuffs [1] would have been a very good alternative! If it can be made more generally. AFAIK Wuffs is still very limited, in particular it never allows dynamic allocation. Many formats, including those supported by Wuffs the library, need dynamic allocation, so Wuffs code has to be glued with unverified non-Wuffs code [2]. This only works with simpler formats.
[1] https://github.com/google/wuffs/blob/main/doc/wuffs-the-lang...
[2] https://github.com/google/wuffs/blob/main/doc/note/memory-sa...
-
NSO Group iPhone Zero-Click, Zero-Day Exploit Captured in the Wild
There are efforts to do that, notably https://github.com/google/wuffs
RLBox is another interesting option that lets you sandbox C/C++ code.
I think the main reason is that security is one of those things that people don't care about until it is too late to change. They get to the point of having a fast PDF library in C++ that has all the features. Then they realise that they should have written it in a safer language but by that point it means a complete rewrite.
The same reason not enough people use Bazel. By the time most people realise they need it, you've already implemented a huge build system using Make or whatever.
-
FaaS in Go with WASM, WASI and Rust
Here's an off-topic answer.
Depends on what you want your toy language to do and what sort of runtime support you'd like to lean on.
JVM is pretty good for a lot of script-y languages, does impose overhead of having a JVM around. Provides GC, Threads, Reflection, consistent semantics. Tons of tools, libraries, support.
WebAssembly is constrained (for running-in-a-browser safety reasons) but then you get to run your code in a browser, or as a service, etc, and Other People are working hard on the problem of getting your WA to go fast. That used to be a big reason for using JVM, but it turns out that Security Is Darn Hard.
I have used C in the (distant) past as an IL, and that works up to a point, implementing garbage collection can be a pain if that's a thing that you want. C compilers have had a lot of work on them over the years, and you also have access to some low-level stuff, so if you were E.G. trying to come up with a little language that had super-good performance, C might be a good choice. (See also, [Wuffs](https://github.com/google/wuffs), by Nigel Tao et al at Google).
A suggestion, if you do target C -- don't work too hard to find isomorphisms between C's data structures and YourToyLang's data structures. Back around 1990, I did my C-generating compiler for Modula-3, and a friend at Xerox PARC used C as a target for Cedar Mesa, and Hans used it in a lower-level way (so I was mapping between M-3 records and C structs, for example, Hans was not) and the lower-level way worked better -- i.e., I chose poorly. It worked, but lower-level worked better.
If you are targeting a higher-level language, Rust and Go both seem like interesting options to me. Both have the disadvantage that they are still changing slightly but you get interesting "services" from the underlying VM -- for Rust, the borrow checker, plus libraries, for Go, reflection, goroutines, and the GC, plus libraries.
Rust should get you slightly higher performance, but I'd worry that you couldn't hide the existence of the borrow checker from your toy language, especially if you wanted to interact with Rust libraries from YTL. If you wanted to learn something vaguely publishable/wider-interesting, that question right there ("can I compile a TL to Rust, touch the Rust libraries, and not expose the borrow checker? No+what-I-tried/Yes+this-worked") is not bad.
I have a minor conflict of interest suggesting Go; I work on Go, usually on the compiler, and machine-generated code makes great test data. But regarded as a VM, I am a little puzzled why it hasn't seen wider use, because the GC is great (for lower-allocation rates than Java however; JVM GC has higher throughout efficiency, but Go has tagless objects, interior pointer support, and tiny pause times. Go-the-language makes it pretty easy to allocate less.) Things Go-as-a-VM currently lacks:
- tail call elimination (JVM same)
-
Don't carelessly rely on fixed-size unsigned integers overflow
Because if you couldn't prevent creation of pointers from the thin air (e.g. by sending them to remove server and then pulling them from said server) then you can not prove anything of that sort and if you limit such operations then you are starting journey on the road to Rust or Wuffs!
smhasher
-
GxHash - A new (extremely) fast and robust hashing algorithm 🚀
The algorithm passes all SMHasher quality tests and uses rounds of AES block cipher internally, so it is quite robust! For comparison XxH3, t1ha0 and many others don't pass SMHasher (while being slower).
-
The PolymurHash universal hash function
Confirmed, I tested it. https://github.com/rurban/smhasher
-
Show HN: Discohash – simply, quality, fast hash
There's lots of great hash functions out there: some are super fast, like xxhash and highly optimized, others are also super fast umash and based on interesting math ideas from finite fields^1, while maintaining high quality (according to SMHasher). Others are also fast and interesting (tabulation hash, that may sometimes be seemingly universal), one of the main originators of those ideas are Mikkel Thorup^2. Anyway, a couple of years ago I also tried my hand at building hashes and created a few that passed SMHasher (tifuhash ~ a floating point hash, beamsplitter - a seemingly-universal tabulation style hash, and this one discohash - a "more traditional" ARX-based design (addition rotation xor)^3 ).
0: https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/blob/master/xxh3.h
1: https://pvk.ca/Blog/2022/12/29/fixing-hashing-modulo-alpha-e...
2: https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.01523
3: https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/898.pdf https://crypto.polito.it/content/download/480/2850/file/docu...
4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLAKE_(hash_function)
Discohash (posted here) is the fastest one I made, it's simple and doesn't rely on any arch-specific optimizations or vector instructions (AVX etc ~ tho I suppose...they could be added? I'm definitely no expert in them, I barely get away with doing the C/C++ implementations!)
The main mixing round function is:
mix(const int A) {
-
A Vulnerability in Implementations of SHA-3, Shake, EdDSA
ubsan, asan, valgrind tests are missing. some do offer symbolic verification of the algo, but not the implementations.
See my https://github.com/rurban/smhasher#crypto paragraph, and
- Adventures in Advent of Code
-
New ScyllaDB Go Driver: Faster Than GoCQL and Its Rust Counterpart
This is the best, most comprehensive hash test suite I know of: https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/
you might want to particularly look into murmur, spooky, and metrohash. I'm not exactly sure of what the tradeoffs involved are, or what your need is, but that site should serve as a good starting point at least.
-
What do you typically use for non-cryptographic hash functions?
Here is a good comparison table, as you can see, BLAKE can perform in secure way much faster than crc32, so my original point, - to use non weak hashes unless you really have a reason/requirement not to do so
-
What hash function you use for hash maps / hash tables?
smhasher is a great place to testing results for a massive number of hash algorithms.
- Hash collisions and exploitations – Instant MD5 collision
-
Count-Min Sketch
We ended up with fasthash64 and lookup3 by looking for a fast hash that is easy to port to the restricted subset of C supported by eBPF with minimal changes. https://github.com/rurban/smhasher is a great resource for that.
I would probably choose different, more robust hash functions if I was targeting regular C.
What are some alternatives?
xxHash - Extremely fast non-cryptographic hash algorithm
png-decoder - A pure-Rust, no_std compatible PNG decoder
stb - stb single-file public domain libraries for C/C++
wyhash - The FASTEST QUALITY hash function, random number generators (PRNG) and hash map.
BLAKE3 - the official Rust and C implementations of the BLAKE3 cryptographic hash function
csharplang - The official repo for the design of the C# programming language
Hashids.java - Hashids algorithm v1.0.0 implementation in Java
image-png - PNG decoding and encoding library in pure Rust
highway - Performance-portable, length-agnostic SIMD with runtime dispatch
rust - Rust for the xtensa architecture. Built in targets for the ESP32 and ESP8266
binrw - A Rust crate for helping parse and rebuild binary data using ✨macro magic✨.
kandria - A post-apocalyptic actionRPG. Now on Steam!