Stats
google/wuffs is an open source project licensed under Apache License 2.0 which is an OSI approved license.
Wuffs Alternatives
Similar projects and alternatives to wuffs
-
-
-
Scout APM
Scout APM - Leading-edge performance monitoring starting at $39/month. Scout APM uses tracing logic that ties bottlenecks to source code so you know the exact line of code causing performance issues and can get back to building a great product faster.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
security-research
This project hosts security advisories and their accompanying proof-of-concepts related to research conducted at Google which impact non-Google owned code.
-
-
-
-
Posts
- Wuffs (Programming Language) – Wrangling Untrusted File Formats Safely
-
Wuffs the Language
Wuffs seems fascinating and I really wanted to like it. But when I look at the code for the JSON decoder it seems so low level, and full of places for bugs to hide. JSON is a pretty simple spec and this obscures it (although to be fair it's also handling UTF-8).
https://github.com/google/wuffs/blob/main/std/json/decode_js...
Yes it prevents buffer overflows and integer overflow, but it can't prevent logical errors.
I'd rather see efficient code generated from a short high level spec, not an overwhelming amount of detail in a language verified along one dimension.
Logical errors in parsing also lead to security vulnerabilities. For example, here is an example of parser differentials in HTTP parsing:
https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2020/03/30/how-to-exploit-pars...
I think the canonical example is forging SSL certificates to take advantage of buggy parsers, but I don't have a link handy. Again, this has nothing to do with buffer or integer overflows.
(aside: while googling for that I found the claim that mRNA vaccines work by parser differentials: https://twitter.com/maradydd/status/1342891437537505280?lang... If anyone understands that I'd be curious on an opinion/analysis :) )
At the very least, any language for parsing should include support for regular languages (regexes). The RFCs for many network protocols use this metalanguage, and there's no reason it shouldn't be executable. They compile easily to efficient code.
The VPRI project claimed to generate a TCP/IP implementation from 200 lines of code, although it's not really a fair comparison because it hasn't been tested in the wild: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=846028 .
Still I think that style has better engineering properties. Oil's lexer, which understands essentially all of bash, is generated from a short source file
https://www.oilshell.org/release/0.8.8/source-code.wwz/front...
which generates
https://www.oilshell.org/release/0.8.8/source-code.wwz/_devb...
(which goes on to generate 28,000 lines of C code)
-
BleedingTooth: Linux Bluetooth Zero-Click Remote Code Execution
Web development is done mostly using "memory safe" languages and we can see that it is far from being secure. The list looks like: https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/
Which is not to say that "memory safety" is not a significant issue in C/C++. I wonder why wuffs [1] is rarely used in C projects to parse untrusted data given that it can be translated to C.
- Wuffs (Wrangling Untrusted File Formats Safely)
-
The Fastest, Safest PNG Decoder in the World
Generating Go and Rust code is listed as a long term goal at https://github.com/google/wuffs/blob/main/doc/roadmap.md
https://github.com/google/wuffs/blob/main/doc/related-work.md#why-not-ats
Sorry, I forgot to mention that. The fuzzers are at https://github.com/google/wuffs/tree/main/fuzz/c/std
The language has ways of defining type refinements and identifying facts to ensure that arithmetic can't cause an overflow, and it will cause a compiler error if you specify any arithmetic that can't be proven not to overflow. (See bounds checking.)
The readme has a straightforward example, where adding a + 1 causes a compiler error.
-
Wuffs PNG decoder faster than rust
I created a PR here: https://github.com/google/wuffs/pull/45
I was looking at the Rust benchmark's decode function and the color encoding conversion caught my eye. I was curious if I could force the compiler to remove the bounds checks on each access... but no luck!