It seems like we should be building and testing everything in bubblewrap or some other sandbox going forward.
Developer machines are quite juicy targets. They tend to have all sorts of credentials lying around, so it often isn't too difficult to escalate from that to compromising AWS/GCP/etc.
On top of that there's very little preventing a compromise. Developers are inherently expected to run untrusted code, and the usual Linux / MacOS laptop probably isn't even running any kind of anti-virus protection. Want to compromise the downstream app? Now you also need to pass Play Protect & friends.
> It seems like we should be building and testing everything in bubblewrap or some other sandbox going forward.
Yes, we really should. It is frankly a miracle that it has taken so long for fetch-time / install-time code execution to start blowing up in our faces. If we are spending so much effort on run-time isolation, why are we completely ignoring all those practices during development?
You might assume we are able to detect all malicious behavior at runtime. But "stuxnet" and more recently, the xz compromise say otherwise. What if a not-so-popular crate deep in the dependency chain subtly introduced a LPE in it's code?
I won't spoil the claim in the video about what the dependency number is correlated with, and I'm not even sure how true it is in general, but it's very interesting.
> This is a pretty simple type, which is a vector that you can push into, but cannot modify the elements of. The data structure never moves an element once allocated, so you can push to the vec even while holding references to elements that have already been pushed.
This is the left-pad of rust. Reconsider your life decisions if you need to pull in an external dependency replicable with 30 lines of code:
use std::vec::Vec;
#[derive(Debug)]
pub struct AppendOnlyVec<T> {
inner: Vec<T>,
}
impl<T> AppendOnlyVec<T> {
pub fn new() -> Self {
Self {
inner: vec![],
}
}
pub fn push(&mut self, element: T) {
self.inner.push(element);
}
pub fn clear(&mut self) {
self.inner.clear();
}
}Yours will reallocate every so often, invalidating element references. append_only_vec requires only `&self` to push, and can also be used concurrently. Adding these abilities requires unsafe, so it wants its own module to uphold invariants on private members. Add an efficient well-tested impl and several other traits you might want, and a shared crate is entirely reasonable.
Uhh no it isn't? This seems to be a pretty low quality article
Compromising the code that is then most likely run in a test instead of compromising a build script is just a very slight inconvenience for the attacker.
I'm not particularly fond of arbitrary build scripts either, but restricting them will not help the supply chain issue in a significant way.
Also there are several ways to control build.rs execution in the Cargo ecosystem, for example with cargo-deny.
I also disagree a build scripts is a mild convenience. A build script always runs for anyone it’s a dependency for with full access and context and often has access to secrets in CI. A compromised runtime has more limited access and requires actual invocation of code paths (if you’re lying as a dependency that’s never executed, no exploit).
Of course Rust should have language-level support for capabilities so that just invoking a function doesn’t grant it access to arbitrary disk access. But that’s a much more difficult change than tweaking the defaults for cargo.
The fact is that your dependencies are your responsibility. You should be staying up to date on what you depend on and their vulnerabilities. Most vulnerabilities affect specific code paths which may not be present in your code base and do not require mitigation. These are decisions you can make by understanding what your dependencies are instead of offloading to automated package management systems.
NPM has been the posterchild of these types of issues but the dependency stack I saw everytime I compiled even simple programs in Rust made me think Rust would be impacted next. Personally I think third party modules that are effectively universally used (axum, tokio, serde) should be integrated directly into the language.
Just because you don't develop a package manager for your language, doesn't mean someone else won't. See NPM.
Well, it depends on the language: language which "capabilities" (both for the source code and for the building* ) could in theory really reduce a lot of the burden to identify supply chain attacks.
*: some research language have/had capabilities which would make supply chain attack "obvious" but for build systems I don't know if this exist.
Same people who keep the whole rust project going, a lot of those are volunteers aren't they? Not mad to think they could do the same for core packages at least
You don't need to audit all the crap is being uploaded right now. Only really necessary and widely-used packages should be managed in a centralized way, so, auditing all of them isn't that huge task.
In the end it is your decision to use unaudited or refuse unaudited crates.
It should be the default behavior of the package manager to allow downloading only audited/trusted packages. Forcing end-users of the language to be responsible for audit of all dependencies is impractical.
Just because you expect people to behave like X doesn't mean they will. In this case people will automate packaging of artifacts.
NPM was a third party manager (it's not part of EcmaScript nor was it part of Node.js at start) and so is Maven. Reputation matters more than origin.
Those who do not know history are doomed to rediscover it.
Especially because Rust devs brag so much about how it's soo superior to everything else, but then these amateur mishaps happen.
Rust isn't getting the exposure it deserves, I think, partly due to arrogance within the Rust community and a mental complex about "being better than everyone else" - that mentality never works
This crate isn't one of them.
still caught in hours though, so just as a general rule: never install anything newer than 7 days old packages
cargo feature for this is still unstable infuriatingly:
Sure, but from my understanding the Rust project is generally "bottom-up" in that volunteers generally work on what they want to rather than submit their time into a pool for some kind of higher-level management to direct.
The bad package version has also just disappeared from crates.io [2] with no indication its been yanked. There's no security advisory there either [3] "No advisories found for this crate."
I feel crates.io was unprepared for a security incident like this since they're managing the response [4]
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20260820145918/https://github.co...
[2]: https://crates.io/crates/arrayref/versions
[3]: https://crates.io/crates/arrayref/security (I'd give an Wayback link but that's also broken https://web.archive.org/web/20260820150747/https://crates.io...)
[4]: https://github.com/rustsec/advisory-db/issues/3161#issuecomm...
So, yanked crate versions do have an indication on crates.io. (Here's an example: [1]) The Rust blog post uses the word "deleted", and I'm guessing a bit here, but I think they mean that literally, and that the version here is deleted, not yanked. And I think that would be more appropriate: a yanked crate is still downloadable by cargo, if your lockfile is locked to it already; yanking only prevents lockfiles from newly automatically acquiring a lock on that version. That wouldn't be desirable in the case of a compromised crate: you don't want a download occurring at all. The tradeoff of "break those with locks on the crate" tips to being worth it.
That said, I agree with you, though: I think this state (if it is "deleted" and not yanked) should be plainly indicated on the crate's versions page. (Even better would be if it came with a link to, e.g., the blog post or a RUSTSEC so that you could find out why.) (& I think perhaps the docs for yank should point out whether or not it is appropriate in the "compromised crate" scenario, and if not, what to do instead.)
Sure you do; you just don’t want the crate to be made available to people trying to make use of the crate as regular downstream consumers. You still want the crate available for download for analysis. You especially want to be able to deterministically reproduce the vulnerable version of your software that you already built.
I would posit that most package ecosystems should treat “contains an exploit” as its own package state; mostly ignore them; but still be aware of their existence.
In other words, if there’s any other non-exploited option under your version constraints, the dep should resolve to the nearest non-exploited version, even if older. But if it’s the only version, or if you have pinned the exploited version, then the packager should see it, but normally refuse to interact with it—i.e. refuse to lock to it if it’s the only version; or refuse to fetch it if it’s the locked version.
I say “normally” because you should be able to bypass this with a flag / env-var to the packager that basically means “I’m building this for forensic analysis, not for running.”
https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/02/13/crates.io-malicious-cr...
Not having an advisory INSTANTLY available isn't a sign of a decaying org. Chill.
We shouldn't need to resort to pasting `find` commands [1] into the shell from blog posts to tell if we're compromised.
`cargo audit` should be reporting if these packages have been downloaded. The "What you need to do" section of the blog should be run `cargo audit`
> Not having an advisory INSTANTLY available isn't a sign of a decaying org. Chill.
The GitHub issue was opened 8 hours ago. The cargo.io team also acknowledged it 8 hours ago. [2]
> [3] is no longer true.
Previously published versions shouldn't just disappear from the list. There's still nothing there to indicate a version was yanked.
[1]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/08/20/supply-chain-attack-on...
[2]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/318791-t-cra...
Google should read this too. They simply remove Android apps and Chrome extensions without a single word. No page explaining why they removed it, if i was at risk.
HTTP/1.1 309 Security Advisory
Location: https://acme/aaargh-another-advisoryWhat makes you say we were unprepared? We have been deleting malicious crates for a while. This is the first time those crates have wormed their way into an actual real crate that people use, but most of the playbook here was the usual one. We take a snapshot copy of the crate and then purge it from the system.
The security page thing is because the rustsec maintainers were not around or a part of the response as it was occurring. It's pretty normal for a security advisory on rustsec to take some time to merge. We should probably get everyone on the same page about when people not on the rustsec team can merge security advisories, because I do agree that getting them merged quickly is important sometimes.
The main crate entry should also contain a security advisory at top. I looked at the crate and it just looked normal; I had to dig to find the exact impact surface, and if I wasn't informed via secondary means (hackernews) I would not have known. This is unacceptable for a mature package management system.
Luckily I was unaffected in this case.
I can very easily build a highly functional, pleasant to use Apple platform app with 5 or fewer top level dependencies. In many cases, I reach for between 0-2 total.
There’s no reason why this can’t be replicated elsewhere. The key is to make the programming language reasonably robust with at least 80% of common non-UI dev needs built in and put the remaining 20% and UI bits into a small family of well-supported, community-embraced, preferably first party libraries.
That would make it unnecessary to pull in foreign dependencies in the overwhelming majority of projects. What few do get pulled in becomes lightweight, easily verifiable syntactic sugar or libraries with purposes too niche to be worth targeting.
Of course this approach can go wrong too. You could easily end up with a monster like Boost, but that comes down to project administration keeping creep under control and proper modular design.
Direct post link: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/08/20/supply-chain-attack-on...
Initial report: https://github.com/rustsec/advisory-db/issues/3161
Other vendor posts:
* https://www.stepsecurity.io/blog/arrayref-rust-crate-supply-...
* https://research.jfrog.com/post/arrayref-proc-macro1-crates-...
* https://www.aikido.dev/blog/two-popular-rust-crates-arrayref...
¹ https://rust-lang.github.io/goals/2024h2/sandboxed-build-scr...
Also most of these dependencies provide a breadth of features that the end package does probably not need.
Yes, we can argue about the culture of package management (as some of us have with especially npm from day one), but it's done, and your colleagues or AI sidekicks cannot be trusted not to download whatever and try to build and run it. All you can do is limit the effective blast radius.
Many things I run I want to limit to r/w a single dir, and to have to request permission to make network calls.
1. There isn’t a single universal standard for sandboxing across all the different platforms that are supported by Rust.
2. Even if there were, if you’re compiling untrusted code then why would you trust the built output?
If you’re building the create then I’d argue that any preventative steps afterwards is akin to closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted.
Granted some human will likely have to review it. Or packages flagged by Al could require users to explicitly allowlist them.
In the mean time I think it's possible to hack Cargo and run all build scripts in a microVM. The blast radius will be limited to malicious code in the binary instead of uploading all your CI secrets and deleting the whole hard drive.
Why do so many languages fall into this horrible practice?
It provides sandboxing for arbitrary CLI commands using Seatbelt / SBPL on macOS and Landlock LSM + seccomp-bpf on Linux. You can use it to protect local dependency builds, or integrate it into GitHub Actions to add an extra layer of protection to CI.
Feel free to give it a try — I’d love to hear your feedback.
There is an open issue for this: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/13681
I share the dislike for arbitrary build scripts but restricting them will not help the supply chain issue in a significant way.
Also there are several ways to control build.rs execution in the Cargo ecosystem as well, for example with cargo-deny.
Also, crates.io can defer serving up newly uploaded scripts that have a new build.rs / proc-macro dependency and warn publicly that a version introduces it.
Restricting build scripts 100% will help mitigate the impact, just not if you only deny it once. And they can develop other things like sandboxing for build scripts by default and escaping that to be the exception that has to be explicitly allowed.
pnpm does have some other features to prevent supply chain attacks, so there is still something to learn from other ecosystems. For example pnpm has a cooldown period for new dependencies and can prevent trust policy downgrades (eg new version published without build provenance where older versions did have it). See https://pnpm.io/supply-chain-security
`cargo add` is sufficient to compromise you, before you have a chance to even vet the code.
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49372853
Supply chain attacks are not a problem that can be solved by a single silver bullet, however the biggest benefit comes from a combination of minimum release age + fresh 2FA required for every publish + automated scanning. This makes it considerably more difficult to pull off a supply chain attack and should be the baseline security for all package managers.
Forbidding compile/build-time shenaningans is trivially bypassable and has already been bypassed in the NPM ecosystem by just making the library code itself (not the build scripts) malicious - eg. do the bad thing when the code is loaded/tested, assuming the language has static constructors.
It would allow projects to avoid newly published dependency versions until a configurable waiting period has elapsed.
npm has had a similar min-release-age feature for years.
That name looked familiar to me; I believe it's the same David Roundy who was an academic at Reed College who wrote DARCS, which is version control software. I used DARCS when I started grad school around 2010 before switching to git.
Are there any comparisons between the state of the stdlib in C++ vs. Rust? I’d think that would serve as an excellent jumping off point to start chipping away.
Indeed, the solution is to get away from the wild soup of author-managed dependencies and go with something with an audited collection of software that is maintained by separate human beings from the known-vulnerable hackers writing the software.
And indeed Go and .NET and Java all qualify. But the gold standard here is Debian and all its downstreams.
You can't disable build.rs, Rust Analyzer executes proc macros as soon as you open the project (and it needs to execute them in order assist the developer), minimum days since release has not yet made it into stable (though luckily it is planned for 1.100), and the number of project dependencies goes easily into several hundreds (still better than npm's few thousands, though, and I know that some deps are from Cargo workspaces), and on top of that, lots of packages stick to 0.x version for years.
Personally I see Rust community's packaging and security culture more akin to that of JS than to Java et al.
I think we might be able to crowdsource audits. At least in the Rust ecosystem I'm confident that this is feasible with the right tooling.
Turns out, it just doesn't make sense to be an independent open source developer of a critical dependency anymore. You can write the software yourself, but you can't publish it yourself.
All the Rust library crate developers will have to get together and start their own software foundation.
I personally don't believe the standard library argument is very convincing, because even with Java the latest newly added HTTP client has some blatant problems that require you to go with a wrapper like Methanol.
Lost a lot of faith in the safety of the Rust ecosystem...
Use containers for development. And reduce the amount of third party deps you import into your projects. This is only going to get worse.
This is really a cultural problem not a technical one.
Both Cargo and npm should look at what Swift Package Manager (SPM) is doing.
It’s not perfect but there’s a noticeable absence of supply chain attacks involving SPM, probably partly because it doesn’t use a mutable registry, but I suspect attacks are just more difficult. On the rare occasion a build script is involved it’s run in a sandboxed plugin.
Your development tools should not be able to access your keys.
I have built a model for providing data-isolation on nixos:
https://decentstat.es/posts/shai-halud-nix-housing/
(non vibecoded)
And the comment is:
// ShellExecute via WScript escapes Cargo's job object; spawned children otherwise
// keep the build script (and `cargo build`) waiting until they exit.
Would it be gauche to speculate? Maybe some script kiddy sweet-talked Fable into dropping its safeguards, or maybe Anthropic is doing a training run for Fable 5.1 and the air-gaps aren’t gapping.
Nobody can agree on what those common things are in a general purpose langusge though. It works for something like Go, because it is largely used for servers and command line tools from what I can tell.
For Rust, well I would like to prioritise features for embedded development, someone else might want game dev features (geometry and physics stuff), yet another person wants data science things. And so on.
And even if did put some of those things in std, that is stable forever. That is how C++ ended up with an unusably slow regex implementation in the standard library. And it isn't fixable. Everyone just ignores it and uses a third party library like PCRE, RE2, etc instead (depending on their specific needs). I would not expect web or GUI things in the standard library for this reason, those standards change too frequently for that to be stable forever.
And even something like Python, which is known for data science and machine learning, doesn't have core libraries for those activities in the standard library. Numpy, Pandas, Scipy, Pytorch etc are all third party projects.
It's a self-inflicted issue that most other languages with "batteries included" don't have since they will document breakage and upgrade paths when anything changes, or they are not impacted as much since they are using an intermediate language as interface and avoid most ABI issues.
The implementation is fixable though, you can break the ABI and address your issues. A lot of standard library defects are fixed in an unstable ABI mode they have, but that requires you to link it statically or dynamically and then ensure all your shared object dependencies are using the same exact version. It's not trivial for everyone, but many do this (usually the static version).
Well, then take the Lazarus / Free Pascal's approach and just put everything :-P. It isn't like code takes THAT much space.
If you install Lazarus you get a ton of stuff out of the box, aside from the crossplatform WYSIWYG RAD IDE and desktop application framework you also get 2D graphics libraries (with a bunch of image i/o), networking libraries, (de)compression libraries, a webapp framework, database clients, parsers for json, xml, markdown, javascript and a bunch of other stuff (even a parser for the language itself), a TUI framework, bindings for a bunch of external libraries and other stuff.
And all that stuff (or at least most of it) work on all the platforms the compiler supports. Yes, using FPC you can probably (didn't try) make a pretty markdown viewer with inline JPG and PNG display support that runs on Windows 3.1 :-P.
Unfortunately some people are trying to break this and introduce online package management, but so far at least FPC and Lazarus comes out of the box with not just batteries included but an entire carton of batteries just in case :-P.
- not obviously/generally useful (i.e. useless or too specific/should be a program not a library)
- obviously trivial (code it yourself when you need it/compose from other primitives)
- already available (open source) elsewhere by a credible team that supports and maintains it
Anything else… put it in the stdlib
It, as you put it, works for Go because its designers took a hard stance and decided that it was a language for network systems and you're on your own if you want to make it do other things. Nobody needed to agree because it was already chosen for you.
> For Rust, well I would like to prioritise features for embedded development, someone else might want game dev features (geometry and physics stuff), yet another person wants data science things. And so on.
But does Rust need to be all things to all people? The Go ecosystem has a separate standard library under the Tinygo project for those who want to prioritize embedded development. Even if there was convergence on Rust as a language, it doesn't technically need a singular standard library. There can be a distribution for embedded developers, a distribution for game developers, etc.
I think Go apps tend to have better dependency hygiene because the language has a better standard library, which results in better culture around dependencies.
I also think it’s frustrating that both cargo and npm totally ignore the decades of prior art from Linux distributions that have figured out good ways to improve dependency management. We’d be in better shape if there was a community curated subset of known-good dependencies that are release-managed together that the broader ecosystem could build on, sort of like Ubuntu having “main” and “universe”.
Rust meanwhile seems to be following some "no standard library" philosophy.
I feel like there's an opportunity out there to become like an amoeba: fund and build a third party Rust standard library, absorb absolutely everyone who is so grateful to have a library, and then get so big absorb Rust itself.
Certainly having a larger stdlib helps Go projects keep their deps down, but I don't think it's the real reason.
Huge standard libraries make sense for Java, Go, Apple platform etc. because they are developed by giant enterprises that can manage the overhead. Thinner modular systems are a more natural fit for open source development.
You will be trading a stable and vetted huge standard library for 200 small packages that may all be targets for supply-chain attack. Open-source projects don't all have the resources unfortunately to keep track of all their dependencies, so I'm not sure it's necessarily a more natural fit.
Async rust is a jungle of weird compatibility questions. People treat async runtimes like sports teams. (I know I do). I wish it were more like Nodejs where async is just built in.
While overhead is a real concern, I think it’s often blown out of proportion. Once a language achieves a certain baseline of stability and isn’t in constant flux and the standard library matures, changes become infrequent and maintenance load is low. The work is heavily front-loaded.
That’s not what I call well featured.
Most programs should need close to zero dependencies.
Of course they’re free to do what they want, and there’s the question of maintenance overhead[0], but while https://blessed.rs/ needs to exist, Rust’s standard library is deficient in my eyes.
[0] One idea would be to treat a language more like an Linux distro and have library maintainers like package maintainers but a unified quality, audit, and release process
The big reason is money & time. Maybe less so today if you are happy with an AI generated stdlib, but I don't think it's fair to compare Rust (built by Mozilla, who's primary product is an open source web browser) to Swift/AppKit (built by Apple, 4.6T marketcap at the time of writing).
When Go was released it had an amazing stdlib, but that was because Google was funding it.
Swift was intended from the start to not only replace Objective-C and all of its use cases, but also take on new use cases and bring a number of features from other languages that were newer and had different dominant paradigms.
Certainly having a juggernaut like Apple behind it has been instrumental in its success in achieving those goals. That said, a community-lead project with similar aims could probably achieve those aims as well, given enough time.
I think it's just rare for enthusiast-led projects to set out to do such things. My theory on why things tend to go that way is that the types of people to start programming language projects tend to heavily lean nuts-and-bolts and theory with a purist/idealist sort of mentality that's more concerned ideological purity than practical usability.
So to sum this all up, a community-run practical, multi-purpose, batteries-included language likely needs to at least partially designed and helmed by product engineer types so it doesn't end up anemic and stuck in an ideological rut.
Look at C++'s long in the tooth STL.
You don't want to marry a language to fast aging libraries you have to support for eternity. Better libraries always naturally emerge.
Rust's decision here is fine.
The only thing I'd like to see is the ability to programmatically limit transitive dependency count or depth in Cargo. I'd also like crates to specify whether they limit their own deps and whether they have panick-y behavior or not.
Okay, but how do we decide which approach to a problem should be standardised?
Rust's approach of "provide a minimal core to build libraries on top of" provides a fairly significant benefit - flexibility.
A prominent example is async: Rust has three fairly prominent async runtimes (being Tokio for general server-side use, smol for a simple non-work-stealing approach and embassy for embedded). Which one do you make the default? Tokio is very complex and work-stealing is arguably a very bad default in terms of development complexity. smol doesn't fit some workloads because of a simpler execution model. Embassy is way lower level and much more constrained than most applications need. Standardising over one implementation instead of the current (even if still messy due to early portability woes) standardisation around traits and general async semantics would make switching runtimes more problematic, even though the general case is solved with the same approach as Python's
Database access is also a complicated topic. Rust has multiple fairly popular DB libraries. The first two that come to mind are SQLx and Diesel. Both are too complex to be a part of the standard library, both required a fair bit of breaking changes, and if you wanted a raw core to build on top of - you can't really build SQLx on the type of core e.g. Go's database/sql has, you'd be basically forced to implement it all from scratch to handle the compile time type checks anyway
RNG sounds simple, except there are good reasons behind both rand and fastrand existing, and behind rand not being stabilised at 1.0.
DateTime handling is notoriously complicated, has multiple competing implementations (chrono, time, jiff) with various trade offs
Where do you draw the line? What do you standardise and which implementation do you standardise against?
I've seen golang exemplified a lot in adjacent threads, but golang's standard library both has fairly significant issues (json, no set type, very limited CLI flag parsing, UUID took until 1.28) and is standardised around a relatively specific goal (unix server usage)
Dunno, I'm not entirely sold on the whole "extend the standard library" idea for a language meant to run both high level applications and embedded stuff. If anything, recommending blessed.rs more is a better way IMO
They do not want a big stdlib. The downsides are real (the stdlib cannot make breaking changes), and there are no upsides (except, maybe, for faster compilation, since std comes precompiled).
They want more official crates (e.g. `regex` and `libc` are official crates, maintained by the Rust project). And the Rust project does not oppose to that, it just doesn't have the funding.
> There’s no reason why this can’t be replicated elsewhere. The key is to make the programming language reasonably robust with at least 80% of common non-UI dev needs built in and put the remaining 20% and UI bits into a small family of well-supported, community-embraced, preferably first party libraries.
I wholeheartedly agree. Most standard libraries out there (when I say most I easily mean of 99% languages that I know) have pitifully tiny implementations. They at most provide for string parsing, io, a bare networking layer (that's at best a wrapper around the POSIX syscalls), threading and that's it. If you want to do anything more complex, you either have to roll it yourself or use an assortment of the "blessed libs" for any given language, that may or may not work properly, and may or may not even work well with each other. I got pissed off by this at some point so I decided to go ahead and roll my own standard lib that would actually have everything I need to.. actually develop apps. Now I know most people probably aren't going to be using it (mainly because its functional API isn't what most C++ devs want) but for me it's actually been brilliant.
Having libraries allow the community to explore rather than saddling it with a bad default. See the number of http server frameworks etc.
The real solution here is not for the stdlib to become a black hole, swallowing up every half-way popular library a but rather for “rustaceans” to adopt a more security-conscious approach to writing programs- C programs typically have few and well-chosen dependencies. Some languages, like Odin, completely eschew package managers because they see the very real issues stemming from writing a program with scores or hundreds of dependencies.
The gains are just too numerous and important to reject the few rust spots on a "good enough" stdlib.
But well, the kind of people who nod a bit too much while reading https://boringtechnology.club/ aren't using Rust. They're on C99, ANSI CL, Ada, maybe Python, Perl or Tcl.
> There’s no reason why this can’t be replicated elsewhere.
It is replicated elsewhere and is not limited to Apple; I can do the same using a tech stack of perhaps 2x techs and very limited (manually added) deps. I'm thinking Lazarus, which comes with most things I'd need for most apps.
Arrayref seems somewhat niche, but its kind of in the standard library as of Jan 2026 as std::slice::as_array https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.slice.html#method.as...
Primarily I think the underlying concern has to do with the pathway for authoring code. When you have contributors whose submissions are gated with a rigid third party process and where that third party is the one responsible for curating the code (as opposed to the author also being the curator as well as the publisher) then you have the possibility to catch a lot of wrongdoing before it succeeds.
There are many issues that I've seen taken up with Boost, but my personal peeve is how it can make building projects that incorporate it a pain, both because of its sheer size but also because it can sometimes be difficult to appease with its own dependencies.
Practically speaking the standard library is just meant as “what’s included in the default sysimage”.
This allows to have different standard libs for different use cases. Think of Linux distributions in a sense. There are already a couple of alternative “stdlibs” out there for different focuses.
If Odin gets moderately successful someone will probably reinvent it.
No wonder competitive coding champions sometimes preferred Java as they don't had to spend time coding it from scratch.
Most of the things I wrote in Rust have less than 5 dependencies. Those 5 dependencies then depend on 20 other dependencies each. Those 20 dependencies have 2-3 other dependencies. And so on…
There are plenty reasons. Just not technical reasons.
At the end of the day, people like to feel useful. The ecosystem that attracted communities are those ones where everyone can feel they're contributing back to the communities. That's why the most successful languages, save those backed by big companies, are filled with very small libraries.
No body gets excited making C#/nuget packages.
Rust is one of the better languages when it comes to batteries included in it's stdlib. Even then, it's impossible to have a 100% coverage batteries included language because nearly everyone on planet earth has some different/unique use case for their code that doesn't fit a stdlib.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZOuz-SG7-g
Funny how you skipped "I should build my own batteries" and when straight to "increasing and centralizing the duties of your main gratis 'vendor'".
I'm happy to contribute to a larger effort but anything I can build on my own is going to be a thin, flimsy happy meal toy compared to something with the backing of a company or well organized FOSS project.
It would be a big pain for many that are in the unfortunate position to really need build scripts, though.
There are still elephants (or rather mammoths) in the room for supply chain security, such as having 1500 nested deps for a standard project. It’s like we never woke up from the nightmare of leftpad.
If your project had code from 100s of individuals, new versions can be pushed instantly, and nobody wants to review the code, then you have a time bomb. And also other problems.
It isn't so much a question of sandboxing build.rs, as fundamentally changing the way that foreign dependencies are integrated into the rust toolchain (i.e. moving from a rust-centric system like Cargo to something more general like buck2)
To solve the problem of native/C dependencies, they just bundle pre-compiled libraries as data files.
Rust could do the same thing.
Here is my learning building PMG:
Sandboxing is good when the workload is predictable, and the goal of sandbox is to guard against exploitation of vulnerabilities, like sandbox protecting chrome tabs (renderers). But unfortunately build scripts are not predictable, at least not in npm/pypi world and I have seen build scripts doing weirdest of the things which is no different from malware. When popular packages do weird things, build breaks and users end up turning off the sandbox. This is a perpetual problem to deal with while building sandbox (or any least privilege solution) to protect unbounded workloads.
Id like to add project provided runtime capabilities/permissions (eg. apparmor profiles) to the list to.
Maybe the day will come, where projects not providing these things will be considered broken, like nix does.
I would argue that, if a build script doesn’t work in the setting, then it doesn’t deserve to be installable by a default cargo command.
I think we may need to enter a world where there are fewer, heavily audited, libraries and dependency depth is limited. Allowing unvetted dependencies to be installed by default is not a good way forward. App stores have a similar problem and I think a lot of lessons have been learned there that can be applied.
(Oh and btw, proc macros also run arbitrary code.)
The vast majority of crates don't need build scripts, so it is vaguely feasible to audit the list of crates you use that might need them.
Cargo, please PLEASE give me a way to disable third-party build.rs and whitelist the ones I need. And please loudly mark any update that adds a build.rs where there was none before.
I think the sweet spot is having an ecosystem of "blessed" libraries that are reviewed for security and quality, but are versioned independently of the language, and maintained by subject matter experts.
Downloaded by_address v1.2.1
Downloaded block-buffer v0.12.1
Downloaded block-padding v0.4.2
Downloaded adler2 v2.0.1
Downloaded color_quant v1.1.0
Downloaded blowfish v0.10.0
Downloaded byteorder v1.5.0
Downloaded bytemuck_derive v1.12.0
Downloaded futures-sink v0.3.34
Downloaded bs58 v0.5.1
Downloaded critical-section v1.2.0
Downloaded fnv v1.0.7
Downloaded bytemuck v1.25.2
Downloaded form_urlencoded v1.2.2
Downloaded futures-macro v0.3.34
Downloaded futures-io v0.3.34
Downloaded blake2 v0.11.0-rc.6
Downloaded find-msvc-tools v0.1.11
Downloaded funty v2.0.0
Downloaded fdlimit v0.3.0
Downloaded ff v0.14.0
Downloaded foldhash v0.2.0
Downloaded bon v3.9.3
Downloaded fdeflate v0.3.7
Downloaded darling_core v0.23.0
Downloaded bon-macros v3.9.3(Rust even enforces for proc macros, which is why so many of the crates in your example end with “derive” or “macros.”)
In my opinion, library authors should really minimize the amount of dependencies they have. Back to TypeScript, we are also the authors of https://github.com/okcontract/cells and we made a point of almost not having dependencies or even devDependencies.
It implements the base58 encoding, which is used primarily by... Bitcoin.
I'd love to see the explanation of why "a TUI file manager" needs a crate closely associated with crypto coins and not much else.
It is precisely this kind of thing that makes Rust a no-go for most enterprises.
"I just want a CLI tool."
"Congratulations, your servers are mining crypto!"
PS: bs58 is maintained by one anonymous person and their package is used in just about every Rust crypto library and hence application. Compromise his account in the same manner as the 'xz tools' attack and you could still billions in crypto!
readline
pcre
ncurses
pthread
and POSIX (and some unix thingies)
The thing is, trust is a massive optimization. If you believe code from X is competently made and not malicious, you can accept that code without any additional overhead. (Building trust is a significant effort, but trust begets trust, so there's a resonable path from starting small to scaling.)
It's not that these mechanisms that require less trust (none of them eliminate it, BTW, when you examine them) can't work. It's that they'll inevitably be outcompeted by trust-based systems (in most domains).
E.g., compare the effort of creating a new, full featured, general purpose language, promoting it, building and maintaining all the tooling and documentation around it to support it, etc to the effort of creating and maintaining a curated package repository of trusted packages (and/or adding trusted code to extend the standard library) for existing language X.
(It's not clear to me you could provide enough value from a new language focused on effects that you could convince any but a few from adopting it at all, even if it dropped from the sky fully formed with all tools, docs, etc. in place from day one.)
It's not the only way. You can sandbox processes. I think sandboxing is the much more reasonable approach, because in the end of the day, there are still closed-source software products where you can't demand that the manufacturers use certain language safety features.
So if your software needs to make HTTP requests and read the filesystem then the malware will be able to make HTTP requests and read the filesystem, which is enough for a ton of malware. Sure, maybe you can limit the directories it can access a bit and possibly some sort of network filtering, but it isn't a silver bullet.
Capability security in-language would make a huge difference, because the more granular you "sandbox" the less likely it is that the compromised component has the access it wants. For example if the HTTP client library is compromised maybe it can't access the filesystem so can't steal your cookies. Or maybe like in this case no permissions were needed at all and despite the process having enough capabilities for malware this malware can at worst return bad values and try to chain this to an exploit which is far more difficult than just running it itself.
This is why I'm building this language. It's capabilities based. Build scripts can't just do whatever the hell they want to, everything is auditable, and it layers its sandboxing.
It's for fun and anyone looking should understand that this is AI driven building with human driven design, but the goal is to demonstrate.
This is partially because for nearly every project the build system is something they need and don't care about. When they need something weird they hack just enough to make it work and never ask "how should the build system change so that this was a property instead of running code", and thus build systems are slow to improve. In a number of cases the build system did have a way to do that thing, but the person didn't know about it.
There are also a lot of code generators out there. I have yet to see a large project which didn't have their own code generator for something specific to their project (protobuf is an example from Google that has escaped and become useful elsewhere, but there are many others that are specific to one project. Yacc is from the 1970s, and stands for "yet another compiler compiler" - implying the idea was already common 50 years ago). You cannot have/use these useful tools without running arbitrary code.
Nearly every time that you see a build script in use it's to support building C code, which has no standard build process and which often involves executing shell commands, and the shell itself is an arbitrary code execution environment with arbitrary access to the network.
The idea is "least privilege", and we desperately need it in computing. The precise technical mechanism we use to achieve it is less important than committing to the idea that a dependency doesn't run with full privilege of its host program and an install script doesn't run with full privilege of the programmer.
The original Linux seccomp is old enough to drink. It's always been possible to do things like expand macros in a no-IO environment. Nobody's bothered to do it over the past two decades. Why would anyone bother in the next two decades?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E82ly38YEEQ
Summary: it's cultural. Rust likely inherited the practice from Nodejs, who inherited it from Ruby. I think in Rust online spaces in particular there is also this undercurrent of "you're not smart enough to use certain parts of the language, so download libraries that handle that stuff for you."
I understand not every language can have Go's amazing stdlib, but I would much prefer Pyhton's approach where every now and then some package/function from the stdlib gets deprecated/removed. Rust's 3rd party ecosystem is the worst thing from the language, worse than the compile times.
Writing macros in rust is a pretty horrible experience but it's not difficult
The better practice is for bigger projects to form collecting such small utilities into larger utility libraries that have some organization, security practices, code reviews, etc. Good examples are Java's Apache Commons or C++'s Boost.
This is why Javascript and Typescript suffer from this the most and has little to nothing to do with "popularity" and likely 9/10 of these npm packages import an external library.
Golang on the other-hand is just as popular and has a stronger standard library which people build against and it is encouraged to use its standard library rather than rolling your own or importing another package to solve the problem.
Java's standard library had arguably also been poor for a very long time and "import tons of libraries" just had not been practical for most of that time because the tooling and ecosystem for that did not exist yet.
The solution was apache-commons and guava. Two large libraries with everything the developers heart desired and well maintained by large organizations.
For Rust be probably will never have anything exactly like that because requirements from no-std development to fully fledged backend service are too diverse, but there is still room for a small number of well maintained backed by reputable developers convenience libraries in my opinion.
It would be better to have blessed crates in crates.io. The Rust core team would release or audit them. If the blessed crates need breaking changes, it can be done by increasing their major semantic version number. That can't be done to the standard library.
Actually, there could be a "trust" level for crates: 1. blessed crates by the Rust core team, 2. trusted developers, 3. untrusted developers. Or something like that..
The reason I don't think it's a sufficient explanation is that there is a clear history of large, 3rd party libraries being created exactly to supplement poor standard libraries. C++ has Boost, Java has Apache Commons (though Java also has a pretty huge standard library), arguably we could even say C has Posix/Win32/Cocoa.
I believe there is some deeper cultural reason why certain language ecosystems coalesce large utility libraries, while others prefer myriad tiny dependencies.
You could get rid of a huge portion of the go standard library and have a massive ecosystem of leftpads, but the fact that `go build` can easily be run in off-line mode and doesn't execute any code other than the go toolchain itself, means you have a fundamentally more trustworthy ecosystem overall.
Rust, on the other hand, might keep you from a subset of buffer overruns, but it will gladly run obfuscated, untrusted code in your name when you wouldn't otherwise expect it to.
As an industry, we need to somehow stop making this mistake.
Make dependencies annoying to use and it forces people to be more disciplined about them and if you do insist on a package manager you should not support transitive dependencies at all, packages should be self contained.
That doesn't mean you jump to importing nonsense or trivial dependencies. The top hundred are efficient, well-designed crates of the quality you'd expect in a large std like Go or Swift, sometimes even higher as people can write better implementations that they otherwise wouldn't (or wouldn't be used over std). And those languages make breaking changes! C++ is mostly stable, so it's full of junk like <regex> or just unordered_map. Rust managed to wholesale reimplement HashMap 6 months after SwissTable released, like it is also easier to express this level of encapsulation, but that's part of countless design/interface decisions made deliberately to not constrain forwards compatibility, including a smaller std.
However, that's no excuse to have a worse developer experience in this area. We need better tools to vet and communicate the quality of a crate and its supply-chain, like community-curated or even additional org-maintained crates, and maybe a handful delivered precompiled in the default rustup distribution which can change over time. I don't think they need to be added to std itself though
I won't mention lack of date/time lib because that's complex and changes often.
That's why projects end up with 100s of crates, sometimes 1000s.
This might not be a well received fact in Rust community, but it's a fact nonetheless.
As an embedded dev, I personally find it very useful to compile Rust programs without a standard library. I would not use C# or Python for an embedded project for the reasons you probably prefer them for your projects.
But even something like Python has lots of cruft in its standard library. And they are willing to make breaking changes. Nobody should use urllib.request for example, requests is a far better HTTP client library. To the point where the stdlib docs tell you so.
This does sound like an excellent way of improving automated package checks, even if it does result in some false positives and false negatives. For all sorts of packages, not just code dependencies.
Packages can release updates arbitrarily, while standard libraries tend to have longer release cadences.
It's also more difficult to put arbitrary code into an stdlib, because stdlibs are scrutinized better.
Also, it's harder for some random anonymous developer to gain push access to stdlib repository.
One of the reasons so much Rust code is in libraries is not because there are no people to write it (duh), but because putting these in std commits maintainers to keeping backwards compatibility and slows down included package's release cycle.
The proposal ends up amounting to either shifting stuff around, or asking to other people to put in more effort? Into a project that usually doesn't pay (programming languages and runtimes)
Which by the way, asking other people to do stuff for free IS the attack vector, if you are the kind of dev or company that gets hit by these, your ultimate root cause is that your business strategy is using code without paying for it. No such thing as a free lunch, you will pay for it, among other things, with an increased cybersecurity risk.
The crate does have an advisories/"security" page on crates.io.
We could try and show the existence of a security-deleted crate on the page. This is not a priority for anyone, and I remain unconvinced that it needs to be (not that that is my decision anyway). File an issue and make your case to the crates.io team.
I wonder if this is not in part the same situation as we arguably had with the xz compromise: some imminent change would have made the attack harder (in xz's case, IIRC a change to systemd to dlopen the compression library instead of directly depending on it), and the attacker rushed before the opportunity window closed.
Cargo has `min-publish-age` in nightly, and it's currently heading towards stabilization: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/17335
Who is going to pay for the resources to make that happen, though? The reality is that the bulk of Rust contributions come from a fairly small group of people, many of whom are volunteers. Some are Mozilla employees, and they don't have all the funding in the world.
Yes, it would be great if every open source project could magically be able to meet the needs of all its users, but that just isn't how it works.
It lets you take a slice `&[T]` and return a slice with a known number of elements`&[T; N]`. tiny-skia was probably using this to get some SIMD optimizations.
As of Jan 2026, this seems to be in the standard library under slice::as_array https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.slice.html#method.as...
It was only when people wanted a common approach to shipping both in browser and "native" that this glitch happened. I believe a standard library and "batteries" would have abated it entirely or resulted in a slightly less-bad situation. I do think Cargo is a slightly less-bad situation in many ways, and that it can be done better.
Nah. Npm was invented because node had its node_modules directory. But it was tricky to find and download modules you wanted to use. Until npm, you had to add libraries to node_modules by hand. And check them in to git or something. And keep them up to date somehow. Npm added a searchable index and a tool to automatically install all your modules. Npm was only bundled alongside Nodejs many years later.
Bundling was separate. I can’t remember if browserify predated npm or not. But it was a wild idea at the time to make node modules build for the browser too. Browserify - and later webpack and friends - work with or without npm.
Batteries also don't help if dependencies don't replace them. Arrayref functionality has been part of Rust std lib for a while now.
I would suggest that such packages should simply require authenticated access + manual “write an email to ask to have your account be put on a whitelist”-driven authorization. Such a package would still be there (in its redacted state); but attempts to download it would be a 401 (if unauthenticated) or 403 (if not on the whitelist) error response, which the packaging tooling would need to know how to handle.
(In any case, this “redacted” package state and my “exploited” package state could be two variants of the same logic, both following the same approach to locking/resolution, both requiring the flag to indicate that you understand what you’re doing and aren’t just going to run the resulting program. The only difference is that once you pass that flag, an “exploited” package would then just work, for anyone; while a “redacted” package would still have one more gate standing (server-side AAA) in the way.
I see the "exploit" case as a strict subset of redaction in which you do want to continue serving downloads to parties that explicitly acknowledge that they understand the classification of the artifact in question.
(Amusingly this exchange has led me to realize that as things currently stand a piece of malware can trivially be made illegal to distribute and thus extremely difficult to develop countermeasures for provided that the malware authors are willing to violate an additional law or three.)
This doesn't make sense if the legal reason is accidental release of secrets or PI, in which case you absolutely do not want to leave it up.
I'm not talking about things like github tokens here, those can be revoked. But actual secrets or PI where that isn't possible.
I don't mind malware being lumped in to that - the place to look up code for historical or analysis reasons ought to be version control, not crates.io
The build infrastructure should make security incidents easier to respond to, not harder. I shouldn't be sent on a wild goose chase at a time when I'm potentially already dealing with a major incident. The tools need to "just work".
Yes, I agree with you that analysis is good.
We would probably be open to sharing files with those who ask. Probably, I don't know what other team members would think about that. This roughly matches the workflow you propose below where people can ask for access to these things, just a bit more manual.
Any way of keeping it around on the server in a way that is fetchable by cargo is a complete non-starter. Bright red lines are useful in security: _the file is gone_ is way easier to keep secure than "the file is still there in a way that might be fetched if you have the right flags set" now means that that flags mechanism is now security sensitive.
If you'd like us to have a nice page that shows deleted-for-security crates, that's probably a proposal we'd welcome, but it is not really something anyone has time to work on themselves. Right now we just remove them from the db after taking a backup.
Yes, somewhat common. I work in embedded, and where a supplier gives us the ability to build their code it is a lot easier for us to deal with the next time we need a new build from them.
The problem is that these languages have repositories are both free for all and have no consumer side vetting out of the box.
Linux distributions have maintainers that vet the packages and that's why you can blindly download transitive dependencies with your OS package manager.
But you can't do the same with the AUR. The AUR workflow requires you to actually read the PKGBUILD.
Rust has done nothing to make me safer (although I agree that memory safety is desirable) and the supply chain issues make me less safe.
Still parts of the industry want it. If your business is putting locked down app stores and media-consuming devices in everybody pockets, than memory safety is much more important than for the rest of us.
You can trivially run Cargo in offline mode, via the --offline flag. Nothing about this capability, in either Go or Rust, results in a more particularly trustworthy ecosystem.
> any command starting with cargo can run arbitrary code when operating on an untrusted repository, and should be treated the same as cargo run.
I know you recommended `cargo audit`, but that is not nearly as universally installed as `find`. And as far as I know, cargo-audit has to be run within a project directory? Can it be run outside of the context of a project and scan the cargo registry cache?
I personally appreciated having the `find` command:
* It very clearly indicates where to look (my cargo registry cache)
* It very clearly indicates what files to look for (a list of wildcards)
* It's something that I can easily review and then copy/paste into my terminal
* I can very easily adapt it to my particular environment (perhaps into a `fd` invocation if I'm on Windows, or perhaps adapt it to scan all home directories on my system), or feed these file names into some other vulnerability scanner
You'd obviously already have cargo installed, which means you should be able to run a command against cargo to see if you are currently exposed to any security problems. Even if it's not the current "audit" add on.
They did that because a yanked package can still be used. And in this case there weren't any downloads, so it is unlikely the malicious package was actually used.
How to call it then : Yanked hard vs yanked soft ?
> A new version of the arrayref crate was published with a direct dependency on proc-macro1, which would execute a malicious build script.
> This compromised version was published on 2026-08-20 and removed approximately 86 minutes later, with no evidence of actual usage.
I don't know what more you want. Do you want the malicious version to continue to be available?
What is your critique of their approach? Is it not the case that `go get` is the only one which doesn't even provide a way for the person downloading to run the downloaded code until it is actually executed by the consuming codebase? That seems pretty sound by comparison.
I guess you're saying, "they had to" meaning they should've seen the need and provided it? I'll say this to that (imagined) take; plenty of useful software was made without it, and they got the job done when they knew the absolute most about what a good solution would need. I totally understand being annoyed at the fact that this is the story of every evolution in Go, but I genuinely think they're picking good implementations when they decide on them.
It’s half arsed, brittle and far from user friendly.
> Is it not the case that `go get` is the only one which doesn't even provide a way for the person downloading to run the downloaded code until it is actually executed by the consuming codebase?
If you’ve added the package to your imported then odds are your next step is going to build it. Thus negating any benefit.
I think the real issue is malicious packages entering package ecosystems. Whether your package manage executes on downloads or not is moot because you’ve still got untrusted code sat in your project imports, just waiting to be accidentally executed.
> I guess you're saying, "they had to" meaning they should've seen the need and provided it? I'll say this to that (imagined) take; plenty of useful software was made without it, and they got the job done when they knew the absolute most about what a good solution would need. I totally understand being annoyed at the fact that this is the story of every evolution in Go.
I think you’re being too charitable here. I think Russ Cox just didn’t want a package manager because C doesn’t have one. But ended up relenting after everyone nagged the Go team for years afterwards.
And really what they built was the bare minimum to manage package version pinning and updates. But it has none of the visibility that central package repositories have. So how do you know if a Go package has been compromised when the only source of truth is the compromised origin?
I don't think automatic updating is a good idea at all. It's just the honor-system, and trust is a security flaw.
> If you’ve added the package to your imported then odds are your next step is going to build it. Thus negating any benefit.
I actually think this is the benefit! I don't need to go to a website to see what changed, I can just have a look at the code. The best dependencies have a changelog. Ideally I can look at a diff.
> I think you’re being too charitable here. I think Russ Cox just didn’t want a package manager because C doesn’t have one. But ended up relenting after everyone nagged the Go team for years afterwards.
That's entirely possible.
> So how do you know if a Go package has been compromised when the only source of truth is the compromised origin?
Fair point, and probably worse in this future we're in now that NIST is drowning in CVEs and has turned away from some share of them.
I think the ease of adding dependencies does drive the idea of "microdependencies", where you have many dependencies that do one little thing, and then those dependencies likely have their own small dependencies.
Whereas in the C world, you'll probably have a smaller number of dependencies, but it's likely that some of them are very big dependencies that offer a lot of functionality (like glib, for example).
I could maybe see the argument that ease of adding dependencies discourages people from writing small things themselves. Good ol' left-pad comes to mind. In an ecosystem like C, I'd just write that algorithm myself, over and over and over, because pulling in a dep just for that feels annoying.
I disagree: having a big stdlib that encompasses a huge chunk of common functionality (logging, a plethora of network server/client protocols, etc) means that for basic needs, the question of 3rd party libs never arise, whereas for other language, the question is not if you need a dep, but which one. Making gorilla easier to find won't undo the cultural reluctance of adding a 3rd party dep when using the (very pragmatic, IMO) stdlib server is adequate to the task.
One of the core tenets of early Go was the maxim "a little copying is better than a little dependency".
Probably because of this stance, they didn't even HAVE a dependency-management solution for years
I strongly agree the fewer dependencies the better, on average.
Personally I came from a C background so I tended to use deps more sparingly.
In the end it's a bit of a balancing act—lots of dependencies is a larger opportunity for these kind of supply chain attacks to affect you. Copying stuff into your repo protects you from that, but it also makes it way more likely that you'll miss security fixes, unless you're actively looking for them. Re-implementing what you need is also viable but it slows down the dev process.
Culture has a lot to do with it.
There’s no poking, unless you are into that sort of thing
https://cangjie-lang.cn/en/docs?url=%2F1.0.0%2Fuser_manual%2...
2. Add syscall(s) to POSIX, which encourages *nix adoption, with an API like the following:
- Drop capabilities for thread/process except allow list.
- Test if current thread/process has all listed capabilities.
- List should be able to represent capabilities and their attributes, much like a single unveil() OpenBSD call, maybe as an array of/pointer to struct.
- (Program crashes if syscall capability is missing.)
> a lot of the Go standard library is also extremely low quality
Now adjust your definition of "a lot" to include all other languages instead of apparently arbitrarily deciding that "a lot" means at best 10 and pretending that "weird edge cases all over the place" isn't normal.
I also wonder what your issue is with most of those, especially since e.g. regexp is excellent in the context of this thread - it runs in linear time, so it's not possible to craft a malicious input that will make it slow down to a crawl.
> Over time many will probably get new incompatible versions just like json.
What a bizarre statement to make.
FYI: "The encoding/json package is now backed by the v2 implementation.". You get all the benefits possible from the v2 implementation for free while maintating backwards compat and if you want to upgrade to something better, v2 is right there.
Do you have some magical suggestion how this could have possibly been handled better? And no, not having json in the stdlib isn't a viable path, that's just a cop out. But I guess since e.g. Rust and Java don't have json in their stdlibs at all, you can't say their json packages are bad, how clever and smart!
Another frequently made suggestion straight from la-la land is just writing perfect code from the get-go. Brilliant, can't believe nobody's ever thought of that.
Meanwhile in the real world, you've been able to reap the benefits of the solid encoding/json for over a decade now, and with v2 you get some nice free backwards compatible improvements and have a clear path to upgrading to v2. Perfectly handled IMO.
The code in those packages is so far from perfect it's absurd. Like most Go developers, you just have extremely low standards.
Lots of languages have a bad stdlib but don’t fall into the trap of having thousands of micro libraries.
The reason people do it is because it brings clout and money. Just look for articles defending micro libs: the popular ones are by people who make a living on donations, due to maintaining 1000+ packages.
And collaborating in larger libs/stdlib is hard. Plus: Rust, Node, all have a lot of visibility.
You need a good stdlib culture to avoid it (like Go did).
I remember the days where I had to manually put the Spring .jar files into my project. No way I am doing that for 100s of dependencies.
I believe there's (several) open issues about changing this behavior of the lock file, but I have moved on from Rust so don't know the status of things.
That said, this is confusing behavior. I remember I first noticed it when a bunch of crates were showing up in my lock file for every OS under the sun, even though I was specifically using a "wayland" (linux-only) feature.
Not to defend Rust's crazy culture of dependencies, mind you.
I ran in to the lockfile bug myself a day ago and noticed that dependency-feature-flagged-crates show up in Cargo.lock, but their crates aren't downloaded.
See https://embarkstudios.github.io/cargo-deny/checks/bans/cfg.h...
Audit and limit crates (cargo-deny &| cargo-crev, && --offline) until tools exist to audit build.rs safety semi-automatically ($$ safeguard.sh maybe).
The root problem is two parts:
1. crates.io doesn't do mandatory curation. Lack of curation is fail. It's time-consuming and costly for reviewers without a doubt, but so is letting an ecosystem gain maximum entropy (go to shit) by Tragedy of the Commons depending entirely on the honor system. Name squatting, low-quality, unmaintained, typosquatting, and malware are the consequences of too much self-service / semi-self-service freedom.
2. Many, many cargo subcommands are over-eager to run build.rs because it assumes trusted crates:
In an untrusted/uncurated crates world and a build.rs exists or exists in a selected dependency, it shouldn't run at cargo-add time (unless it must). If it exists, on first run, it should be presented to the user in a viewer for manual review unless a magic CLI flag/env var is specified to accept it.
These 2 factors combined appear to create a Swiss cheese holes failure mode for running arbitrary crate `cargo add`. I have confidence a suitable add-in workflow &| standard command &| repository workflow will be adjusted to reduce the attack surface of the ecosystem.
If the absence of these features caused 1000s of dependencies, then where are the remaining 972?
When I look at a project at work then what inflates the dependency tree is a combination of a whole webserver application stack plus SDKs consisting of dozens of crates. Those then pull in an async runtime or two, different HTTP clients, dozens of crypto crates and so on.
The crate count is a poor metric anyway since some subtree of dependencies is often provided by a single organization.
And I find it quite questionable that everything that's needed for an enterprise grade webserver stack should be part of the standard library, not even Java has that. Relatedly, cryptographers have failed to come up with a proven set of primitives, what's standard changes every few years.
And it would have been 0 crates in .NET or Go. Even after adding a web server.
Four. Though you initially asked for five features, so let me add lexopt, which brings the number up to 29.
> That's why projects end up with 100s of crates, sometimes 1000s.
If your argument is "out of 1000s of dependencies 29 could be easily removed" then it does sound a lot less of a deceive change when it comes to supply chain security.
And even getting those 29 right is hard. For example people do want regular expressions with lookaround assertions, but most implementations suffer from runtime blowups (resulting in ReDoS attacks) and improving on that is a fairly recent research[0], so this is hardly a trivial and settled thing to implement. So often there's a tradeoff between choosing more powerful regular expressions and DoS-resistant ones, not one standard.
JSON: there are a ton of different ways to do serialization and deserialization, each with their own tradeoffs, and serde (the most popular) is far from universally agreed upon. The same goes for JSON specifically, there are many different serialization formats with different tradeoffs.
regex: Owned by the rust-lang organization already. You get the benefits of trust (if you trust std, you trust the rust-lang organization anyway), but without the issues of being in std (backwards compatibility and bloat). The only problem I see with that is that BurntSushi is still the owner of the package and as such can still publish new versions on his own (AFAIK crates.io currently requires at least one user owner, but that's something that can be solved by improving crates.io permissions).
walkdir: It has been been postponed, due to the complexity of WalkDir, but may be added in the future. I agree this should be in std. https://web.archive.org/web/20260820171531/https://github.co...
RNG: rand is still evolving, with breaking changes half a year ago. Preferred generators tend to change over time, so I don't see those getting into std (remember, it has to be maintained forever!). I could see the interface (traits) getting into std, but I see no advantage to it: it's maintained by rust-random, but even if you wanted it to be maintained by the same authors as the Rust language (let's say you trust them more than rust-random), you could just move it back to rust-lang-nursery or rust-lang.
CLI arg parsing: not simple at all! The community's preferred solution has 70kLOC (with support for so many features), but there's also argh, pico-args, and others, each with their own tradeoffs.
> That's why projects end up with 100s of crates, sometimes 1000s.
Also because libraries are split up in many crates. For example, regex is split in 3 crates: regex, regex-syntax and regex-automata, and depends on other crates from the same author, such as aho-corasick.
All that said, there are many crates, such as algorithms like aho-corasick, that I think could me moved into the rust-lang org, like regex was.
See also: https://home.expurple.me/posts/a-big-standard-library-is-ove...
I mean look at the people defending the lack of namespacing:
https://samsieber.tech/posts/2020/09/registry-structure-infl...
One of the most obvious problems with the lack of namespacing is that if you have a group of crates belonging together, you have to reserve them all at once otherwise an automated script could detect your package and add common suffixes like -sys and take the name even though you got the non sufficed name.
You cannot add name spacing by just prefixing everything with your preferred prefix, because anyone can publish under that prefix.
I said add functions or capabilities to make it happen.
You don't read.
And it has to be mandatory. Top-level package names will always have more cachet. Developers are suckers for good package names, literal or imaginative. Plus it helps address, but by no means completely solves, name and typo squatting.
I understand people and groups can run their own crates.io-like repository, but that's a tangential aspect. Even if this were ubiquitous, you'd still want mandatory namespacing. You want provenance, or at least intended/nominal provenance, to be as transparent as possible, not implicit or buried. By no means a complete solution, but an important foundation for better technical and culture patterns.
To build reputations (good or bad), an ecosystem needs branding--a reliable way to connect products to an identifiable group with a history. Reputations are crucial if you're just downloading blobs of code in a fast-paced environment, because you're not directly analyzing the code, certainly not every update, and usually not even initially. It's why you don't download software from random websites to run.
Linux and BSD distributions that packaged code were trusted (to varying degrees) to vet code through their package maintainers. People apt install packages with m less trepidation and risk than if they pulled random code off Github. The distro reputations tell you something, at least something much more credible that what availability on crates.io and github.com tell you.
Technical security processes, which are also lacking, are no substitute for social processes. They're complimentary; you need both. But the most rudimentary and important prerequisite for building more secure social processes is completely absent in the Rust crates ecosystem.
I'm using OpenBSD and the ports system set up two users `_pbuild` and `_pfetch` for building packages. The first one is for building and the sample `pf.conf` (firewall) forbid it from accessing the network. The second does fetch the files , but it's declarative with every files listed and signed. Even for languages like go and rust.
Fetching files while building is the bad idea there.
It never ends .·°՞(っ-ᯅ-ς)՞°·.
Build a simple makefile, and you're off to the races.
At least, for my cases, that is.
Nothing is preventing anyone from distributing Rust crates as standard system packages, like some distros do with Python.
I think Debian is actually shipping rust libs in their repositories: https://wiki.debian.org/Rust Now Rust developers can also enjoy having to deal with popular packages that are years out of date/missing from popular repositories/getting deleted.
With NPM and Rust's focus on project's level dependencies, there's no longer emphasis on API stability. Instead we have breakage every months, forcing everyone on the upgrade treadmill. It's easier to audit C library because they focus mostly on security updates instead of redesigning the API for the nth time.
The version page [1] should show that for 86 minutes there was a version 0.3.10, it was malicious and was deleted with a link to the advisory. I get this takes time so even a generic "deleted" entry until they have time to link in the advisory would also be fine so we know something is happening.
Presumably even "deleted" crate versions still have some metadata left behind in the backend so this should be surfaced.
This seems like an excuse, not an actual objection.
Linux can do seccomp or Landlock or gVisor or a combination. Seccomp and gVisor need no privileges. Windows has its internal weird mechanisms. Mac has sandbox-exec.
Cargo could easily pick an appropriate sandbox for each major platform and ship it by default.
> If you only care about Unix, then you can do this yourself today by building code in your sandbox of choice.
This is ridiculous. The sandbox should not have network access, but cargo needs network access to download the package in the first place.
If you have a serious proposal, then I encourage someone to seriously propose it. Cargo is an understaffed open source project that, like the rest of the Rust project, relies largely on volunteers. However, gesturing to unspecified internal weird mechanisms does not strike me as a serious proposal worthy of consideration by anyone, so I'd suggest working on that first.
> The sandbox should not have network access, but cargo needs network access to download the package in the first place.
Naturally. Use `cargo fetch` to download a package locally without invoking any build step: https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/commands/cargo-fetch.html
It doesn't really matter anyway, because nobody is reading anything in their dependencies before it gets downloaded. Malware can also be hiding in plain sight in source code, as this attack and many others shows.
This is the kind of decision users likely don’t understand without looking at the source code of a crate and it’s bad UX to push it to be their responsibility.
Look at how snap, flatpak, etc. provoke people to just turn off security rather than deal with breakages.
A new language won't help because the problem is social, not technical.
FFS, you can't even get people to use filesystems via intermediate objects in today's languages. People think your language is broken if you don't have an ambient open(). You don't need a new language to enforce capability discipline. You need to whack people repeatedly with a cluebat until their laziness and brain damage abate.
Sandboxing almost always involves having a dedicated, privileged service, due to how operating systems have designed things. It requires platform specific code.
This is a technical problem and a social problem, there's zero reason to believe it's just one.
> Sandboxing almost always involves having a dedicated, privileged service, due to how operating systems have designed things.
Or just invoking bwrap. Or sandbox-execute. There's no performance overhead. Complexity is minimal. Just read current Codex source code. It's not so bad. People have been making these sandbox tools for AI agents for years. Just need to apply sandboxing to all domains.
You want some kind of silver bullet that makes code "safe" without anyone having to change anything? To prompt for nothing? To use no IPC portal? That's not happening.
The people saying we need a new language or something are half right. We don't need a new language. A pure library solution is fine! But people do need to do work to make an ecosystem based on capabilities and least privilege to work. And we need to tell people who refuse to do this work to go to hell.
A new language is neither necessary nor sufficient. What we need is new set of balls.
https://github.com/rust-stdx/stdx
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48571266
Note that there are baby versions of this that are uncontentious, for example
this is missing the LTS release. but it is a curated group of libraries that are relatively uncontentious to recommend.
https://crates.io/crates/once_cell
https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/cell/struct.OnceCell.html
Not everything should be eligible for this treatment. Certainly not an HTTP library or something without extremely widespread applicability.
Nearly all of my projects used once_cell, so it's good to see that pulled in. I wouldn't want to see anyhow, thiserror, anything opinionated, or anything domain specific in the std. That's a weight you have to bear forever.
Remember how long Python 2 -> 3 took, and look at the ancient and awful stuff in Python 3's standard library. Rust is not the right language for this.
One can very simply....make breaking changes. Yes it will require some work to update but that's already the case when you upgrade library versions.
The dependency hell doesn't help anyone here, the downside is much worse - lots of bloat, overgeneric libraries and awful supplychain security.
For rust, this would mean something like adding std = 1.0.6 to your cargo.toml. The advantage is it means the standard library can deprecate and replace features. Upgrading std is an explicit step by the developer. Annoying, but in the age of LLMs it should be pretty easy.
The one big question I can’t answer is what happens if your dependencies use a different version of std? Are std v1 Strings compatible with std v2 strings? Oof.
C++ went through that around C++11, where some types had to have ABI breaks (on some implementations, such as that of GCC's libstdc++). It has been a while, but as I remember it std::string was affected since it went from COW to SSO. Map might have been affected too (don't quite remember). It was a mess.
Rust can link multiple semver versions of the same dependency, but you can't pass data structures between those versions. For transitive dependencies that usually isn't a big deal if your direct dependencies use them internally rather than exposing the types in their own APIs. But std contain vocabulary types that everyone uses (Option, Result, String, etc) so that would really not work.
Some features, e.g. the never type[0], are held back years due to all the work that's needed to minimize the breakage.
Another big reason to put something in std is providing types for cross-crate compatibility. If I want to pass a String from one crate to another, I’m glad that string is defined in std so there’s an obvious type we can both use in our APIs.
C - for example - does not have this luxury. Everyone makes their own string type, and C APIs all need to translate strings at the api boundary. It’s super annoying.
It would be nice if we had a standard way in rust to declare a type as serialisable. Right now lots of crates have a serde feature flag to do this with serde. But (a) they need to put this behind a feature flag, since it adds a dependency on serde. And (b) this doesn’t work with other serialisation libraries.
The other big one is futures. There’s still no futures executor in std. Async crates have to decide if they want to tie themselves to a single executor (like Tokio) or be compatible. There is no async stream api in std. No async file api. And so on. It’s a compatibility nightmare.
We need useful traits to abstract over async runtimes. But there are a lot of design points for runtimes so this can't ever go into std. There is embassy, for embedded systems. There is monio and glommio built around io-uring. Then there is smol intended to be simple and lightweight. And then there is the kitchensink of tokio.
Clearly embassy is the one we want in the standard library. /s (It is the only one I personally would have a use for. But no, I don't think any of them belong in std. Traits to abstract over them? Yes, absolutely.)
But even your other example of strings: there are many design points for strings too, that might be better fits for specific use cases: string builder (with a capacity, what String in rust is), copy on write, small string optimisation (like compact_str), even interned strings. So your example of a vocabulary type is somewhat flawed, a better example would be Option or Result. Even anyhow and thiserror build on top of those vocabulary types.
There are upsides, your program is smaller, better security because a random kid can't pwn your deps, quality and interoperability. What's not to love?
The std making a breaking change is the language making a breaking change. Most mainstream languages guarantee stability, certainly Rust.
> your program is smaller
How so? It doesn't matter if the code is in std or a crate.
> better security because a random kid can't pwn your deps, quality and interoperability
That's exactly what I said: you don't need bigger std, you just need more official crates.
That's their mistake, right there... When you're upgrading software, you presumably want a better version. You can't have something better without changing it. It's a logical contradiction.
>It doesn't matter if the code is in std or a crate. It very much does because you don't need 95% of the random stuff in the crates. Even for something like rand, you need an xorshift and that's roughly it. 25 lines of code, sorted. You can even write it as a copypaste "dependency" without much fuss in practically any language. That, versus importing a whole rand library with lots of different algorithms, deps on crypto, tests, OS random-based seeding, customisability, etc.
>you just need more official crates
I guess that's one solution but it would probably just be a better idea to split std in two SLAs, one is guaranteed for core stuff i.e. the status quo, one is YMMV.
I don't want my language creating work for me. "Batteries included" is a feature of higher level languages. Rust is going to live for a very long time, probably beyond all of our lifetimes, and it needs to endure fads without picking up baggage and liabilities.
Rust could have a mandate where certain crates are "blessed" as recommendations. This could come with additional review, oversight, support, documentation, etc.
The Cargo.toml spec should have the ability to limit direct and transitive dependency count and depth. (As well as other things, like "nopanic" annotations/guarantees.)
The Crates.io repo should grow namespaces so we don't typo squat popular packages. It's much harder to miss organization names changing than package names changing.
Batteries included ia the only sane way to do programming languages.
Functions should only have access to their arguments. Nothing more. We need to end ambient authority.
It guarantees that pure functions are pure.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/safe-ha...
https://downloads.haskell.org/ghc/latest/docs/users_guide/ex...
Yes, I want this but in a fast, compiled systems language like rust.
candle, the most popular rust ml library I found in a cursory search, has 119 for cpu only, and 150 to bring in CUDA.
I guess it's taste whether that's comparable
this would have been a way more satisfying dunk if nvidia hadn't split the cuda functionality needed by pytorch into 19 (!) packages on pypi but such is life.
But a Python example doesn't really count, in my mind -- Python is pre-GitHub so tends to have small numbers of large external dependencies, like C++ and other older languages.
But yeah, small number of large dependencies is the way to go.
I said OS level. It's something I should easily be able to do via the OS capabilities that would work for rust, npm, etc.
I would use it not only for rust builds but for nearly every app on my computer.
Yeah, let's hold up the entire world of offensive cybersecurity capability while you work on that. Sure they will wait.
> 2. Even if there were, if you’re compiling untrusted code then why would you trust the built output?
You don't. You sandbox the hell out of it too.
Nice sarcasm but you’re not actually addressing a solution to the problem I raised.
> You don't. You sandbox the hell out of it too.
So you’re now saying it’s ok to have exploits compiled into your application as long as it’s sandboxed?
I wonder how customers of your application feel about that? I’m certainly not going to be entering my bank details into your ecommerce platform (to give just one obvious example why your suggestion wouldn’t work).
Are you not concerned about an asteroid impact rendering you extinct during your next Rust build? Why not? That's the same level of relevance as your supposed concern.
> So you’re now saying it’s ok to have exploits compiled into your application as long as it’s sandboxed?
You need to act like it is compromised in all cases, just like everything else.
> I wonder how customers of your application feel about that? I’m certainly not going to be entering my bank details into your ecommerce platform (to give just one obvious example why your suggestion wouldn’t work).
So your version is "we trust everyone and don't verify anything". Yeah, that's going to work. By your "logic" firewalls wouldn't be necessary.
Then the problem is the language, as the grandparent observes.
It's like if `git clone` ran random stuff from the cloned repo.
The rand crate is my favorite example of this. They have a whole bunch of different rngs. All rated by quality and performance. Some are csrngs and some aren’t. It’s a delight. “Batteries included” languages don’t come close.
Then there’s serde - which uses a clever technique with traits to allow compile time specialisation and optimisation of binary and json serialisers. Most people had no idea that was even possible in rust until someone in the community made it.
Maybe std should pick up the best crates from the community and bring them in house? This might be a good idea. But also maybe not. Since serde came out, several other crates have found ways to crush its performance numbers. Often by 2-5x if memory serves. What a relief we didn’t immortalise the slow version of serde, right?
I’m playing devils advocate here. I think std should be a bit bigger too. But there are real tradeoffs in doing so.
I think periodically rolling in the best crates is the way.
Don't immortalize anything, though. Always reserve the freedom to swap out integrated crates when something better rolls around. Negative impact can be reduced by limiting these kinds of changes to major new versions.
Another option is to swap internals while keeping the same public API. Apple has done this several times with Swift, resulting in massive speed improvements in things like string handling and JSON decoding without breaking anybody's code.
That's a non-starter, though. Once it's in std, it's not an "integrated crate", it's in std, just like any other part of it. Removing it is a breaking change, and I don't want a new incompatible Rust major version every year or two (or even five or ten, honestly). (Of course, Rust has editions to make breaking changes possible without affecting old code, but there are limits to what you can change in editions.)
Pretty much every language ecosystem fights really hard to maintain backward compatibility as they evolve, and every time they fail to do that, it causes headaches, sometimes for years. Python 2->3 is of course the canonical painful example of that, but there are others that are instructive if you only take the time to research.
(And before you mention something like Zig, which changes incompatibly frequently enough, remember that the author has made an active decision to remain pre-1.0 unstable. That's one reason why the Zig community isn't that large. That's not me looking down on them; that's an active choice they've made, and they're free to make that choice. But bigger/popular languages like Rust can't go back in time and decide to be like that.)
So sure, you want, say, a JSON library in Rust std? Who's going to shepherd it in and then maintain it? Well, you could hope that the people behind serde_json might want to do it, but what if they don't? Where are you going to get the people with the time to do it?
For something like Go, the answer is easy: tap into the money printer that is Google, and hire more people. But for Rust? Hell, the core team has probably only declined in number over the years (Mozilla layoffs, for one thing).
>This package contains just four macros, which enable the creation of array references to portions of arrays or slices (or things that can be sliced).
The package in the OP is definitely not in the category of decades of development, it's closer to a leftpadism.
Also the challenge of building a generic module is much larger than building your own. A generic module needs to have flexibility for many different options and integrations, when you build your own you build just what you need and tightly integrate it with the product
True but I believe overestimated. Usually rather than building what's needed, what gets built is what is thought to be needed (often a substantially smaller subset), and then over time you end up building a markedly poor version of a generic module.
let's look at the actual package from OP
>https://docs.rs/arrayref/latest/arrayref/
>This package contains just four macros, which enable the creation of array references to portions of arrays or slices (or things that can be sliced).
I'm no rust programmer, but that doesn't sound like something that moves the needle. I talked about the ratio between value to risk being a relevant decision parameter, so getting infected by an http framework would be defensible, getting infected by adding this to a project to me is a PIP, and getting infected by installing leftpad or a custom cursor plugin in an IDE would be fireable.
Any C library that's also packaged by debian supports being built under these conditions because it's required for everything except non-free packages: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main...
As the link you posted mentions, you need a tiny bit more than that: you also need write access to the temporary directory (/tmp and similar). Many build tools temporarily store files there; for instance, unless things have changed since I last looked, if you don't use the -pipe argument the C compiler stores its temporary intermediate files (preprocessor output, assembler input) there.
Which is the result of how bad dependency managment is outside (i.e. DLL-hell).
Pretty much all other use cases of build.rs can be sandboxed. Well, there is sqlx that wants to connect to database at expansion time to compile check-queries (yew).
Although I suppose that's still doing a lot of shenanigans at compile time. It could be sandboxed pretty well (theoretically). I'd hate to give it up completely though, getting a compile time error when SELECT query params or return values have type mismatches is extremely nice.
The problem is your solution depends on the honor-system. Ie “trust me, because I’m just a YAML mashaller. Why would I want to inject a crypto miner?”
That’s why package databases exist. They are meant to be centralised databases of peer reviewed and CVE checked resources. But Gos approach pushes all that responsibility onto each and every developer.
One thing it does get right, in my opinion, is removing the value of name squatting.
We really do need to rethink the security model behind open source.
Arguing that compromised code is safer when sandboxed really misses the real problem: that you’re running compromised code in the first place. Hence my analogy of closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted.
What we need is to ensure we have stronger safeguards in place to prevent bad code from reaching build pipelines. If it’s in the build pipelines then we’ve already lost.
I get why people argue about sandboxing, it’s an easier problem to solve. But you still end up with a compromised artefact which you cannot ship. So the benefit is negligible.
Yes, it’s annoying to have to make fixes around my codebases periodically, but to me that’s a hell of a lot less annoying than having to pull in a mile long list of dependencies to do anything of consequence. It’s also better than the bad parts of the language being frozen in time forever.
Apple breaks things with Swift not constantly but on occasion and while there’s some griping around it, it’s not a big deal. We make the needed changes and move on, knowing it’s enabling improvements that will be nice to have.
I can use most of the clunky Python, Java, .NET and if it must be, Go, standard libraries, than hunting down for dependencies with platform tier support and such.
And tons of parts of the standard library (and language) being cordoned off as "legacy, don't use for new development". Of course figuring out what you shouldn't use in C++ can be hard too. It isn't well documented (or universally agreed upon), and it takes having it as a full time job to be able to keep up with these days.
No, I much prefer the way Rust is doing it.
Sure, it would be great if the volunteers that contribute to C++ compilers, would improve regex instead of adding the gazillion of features that each ISO C++ standard requires, mostly on their free time, because devs can't be bother to pay for compilers.
Additionally the companies that actually sponsor those compilers also have bigger priorities than improving regex implementation.
Finally if you want to stick regex into a micro-benchmarks context, there are plenty of options out there, as you point out.
The Rust way, like you can have any async runtime, as long as it is Tokio?
We also have the classic example of PHP with numerous not safe stdlib ways to use mysql.
To me the answer is still to vendor your dependencies and don't be on the bleeding edge of updates unless you're willing to invest the time into validating them.
I think it goes without saying that emulating PHP is rarely a good decision.
No it's not. It's exactly what I want, at least.
> When you're upgrading software, you presumably want a better version.
Sure...
> You can't have something better without changing it. It's a logical contradiction.
No, that makes no sense. When I upgrade the rust compiler, I might want it to compile programs faster. I might want its borrow checker to be smarter so that it accepts more valid programs than it did before. I might want to have some new language features (like if-let chaining or GATs).
What I absolutely do not want is to have to change the code in my programs so that it can be successfully compiled by the new version of the compiler.
Yes, certainly there are some times in the lifecycle of a piece of software that there's an improvement that requires a breaking change, but you believe is important and necessary, so you bite the bullet and do it. But you burn user goodwill every time you do that (maybe not your goodwill, but most people are not like you in this regard), and create work for people that they would probably prefer not to do. You also create fragmentation, because people aren't going to upgrade their new stuff to the new version all at the same time, and some people may never upgrade. All of this has costs, and deciding never to make breaking changes (or at least keep them to the absolute bare minimum) is a reasonable choice in the face of those costs.
Maybe it's not the choice you personally would have made, but it doesn't mean it's a mistake. They just value a different set of things than you do, in a completely reasonable way.
Sorry, that's a strawman. Of course you cannot have a better version without changing things. You definitely can have a better version without changing public API.
And people upgrade their toolchain not because they want a different API. They mostly want bugs fixed, support, and sometimes features. Breaking the API has a huge cost and minor benefit.
> It very much does because you don't need 95% of the random stuff in the crates.
But why does it matter if all that stuff comes in std or in an different crate? As I said security doesn't play a role here. You can't even avoid compile-time cost because the std can only come precompiled because it only changes with the toolchain, which is another downside we want to avoid.
> I guess that's one solution but it would probably just be a better idea to split std in two SLAs, one is guaranteed for core stuff i.e. the status quo, one is YMMV.
And again, how is that different from what I say, other than calling "official crates" as "std"?
And what ‘monitoring’ are you going to be doing besides things like CVEs?
Then obviously we have to discuss the implementation!
> Or just invoking bwrap. Or sandbox-execute. There's no performance overhead. Complexity is minimal. Just read current Codex source code. It's not so bad. People have been making these sandbox tools for AI agents for years. Just need to apply sandboxing to all domains.
Tools like bwrap literally could not have existed until very recently without also requiring suid/ privileges, and even today unprivileged user namespaces are not universally enabled. This is why the implementation matters. No, unprivileged sandboxing has not been around for years, especially not x-plat. bwrap is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, great reference - it either requires root or it requires unprivileged user namespaces and it's not x-plat. Great.
> You want some kind of silver bullet that makes code "safe" without anyone having to change anything? To prompt for nothing? To use no IPC portal? That's not happening.
I have no idea why you think I've said this, I'm pointing out that the implementation and technology matters deeply.
> The people saying we need a new language or something are half right. We don't need a new language. A pure library solution is fine! But people do need to do work to make an ecosystem based on capabilities and least privilege to work. And we need to tell people who refuse to do this work to go to hell.
Again, you can't say "this technology has existed for years! You can do it in a library!" and then say "but they don't!". You misunderstand the complexity and assert that it's merely a matter of will. It is both.
And yes, bwrap needs root or namespaces. So what? So does sudo. Setuid binaries are as old as time.
You know what's also been around and doesn't require root? Landlock. Have you heard of it? Has anyone? There's a huge PR and visibility gap in this space. We don't have to invent some new thing. We have to get people to learn about what we already have and use it.
"Oh, the technology works, but it need setup! Oh, my distro doesn't enable it! Oh, it doesn't work out of the box with my code!"
This is a social problem. It's not a technology problem. It's people not wanting to do the work, not understanding what already exists, dismissing solutions based on non-problems (like bwrap needing privileges on some systems), and in general adopting an attitude of "no", not a can-do problem solving stance.
And we're supposed to solve this problem with let another precious little effects language or another fucking MicroVM environment? FFS.
We need unprivileged sandboxing!"
"Use bwrap"
"Nooo, that needs setuid root or file caps!!!1!1"
"So the problem is that bwrap is part of the TCB?"
"Yes. We need sandboxing that relies only on unprivileged code like the Linux kernel"
... the fuck?
You can't solve a social problem with technology.
Yes, it's an amazing feat that has cost billions and led to major features like seccomp v2, ptrace sandboxing, etc. Do you know the history of browser sandboxing? It's pretty complex, a major technical feat.
> Don't sit there and tell me that bwrap, sandboxing, whatever is some kind of recent innovation with uneven distro support.
I can tell you that unprivileged sandboxing is not only new, it's ongoing and nascent work and not commonplace at all.
> And yes, bwrap needs root or namespaces. So what? So does sudo. Setuid binaries are as old as time.
These are massive footguns and issues for deploying code... You don't get that? Again, implementations have tradeoffs.
> You know what's also been around and doesn't require root? Landlock.
lol it is SO NEW what the fuck dude?
> Have you heard of it? Has anyone?
Yes, I use it!
> "Oh, the technology works, but it need setup! Oh, my distro doesn't enable it! Oh, it doesn't work out of the box with my code!"
> This is a social problem.
Yeah these sound like social problems if you have literally no idea what you're talking about lmfao. IT's BOTH.
Your ignorance is blatant and your position is dead in the water.
As for async in Rust, I wrote in another comment that yes that is an issue. What we need is std to define traits that all the different runtimes can implement. Because there are absolutely reasons to use alternative runtimes, depending on what you do. I mostly use embassy (embedded microcontroller development) for example. And if you want thread-per-core with io-uring you want glommio or monio. Smol is simple and compact.
I could also see uses for async in desktop GUI or gamedev (but to my knowledge there isn't any runtime suitable for those domains yet).
Rust certainly borrows from Haskell. Like all good languages. But I’m not aware of Haskell beating rust in program performance & memory usage benchmarks.
SeL4 was first written in Haskell and proven correct in Haskell. Then, with a great many years of effort, ported to C and proven correct there. If Haskell were a viable systems language, I suspect the kernel would not have been converted to C.
> Like lazy evaluation and memoisation
Yes, that causes performance impact. If you don't want the performance impact then don't write code that uses those behaviors. Sure, that rules out large parts of the ecosystem, but I said Haskell was a systems language not that its ecosystem was generally suitable for systems programming.
> however Haskell manages memory
No, Haskell's memory manager is world class, with two (at least) tunable garbage collectors.
> But I’m not aware of Haskell beating rust in program performance & memory usage benchmarks
Nor am I!
> If Haskell were a viable systems language, I suspect the kernel would not have been converted to C.
I suspect they converted it to C because you can't write a kernel in a managed language with a garbage collector.
That’s a strawman argument and you’re still dodging the question.
> You need to act like it is compromised in all cases, just like everything else.
No. I act like compromised code is a legitimate risk regardless of how well your build pipeline is sandboxed.
I don’t understand why this is a hard concept for you to grasp.
> So your version is "we trust everyone and don't verify anything". Yeah, that's going to work. By your "logic" firewalls wouldn't be necessary.
That’s the literal opposite of my point (as well as another strawman).
Hmm . . .
> 1. There isn’t a single universal standard for sandboxing across all the different platforms that are supported by Rust.
That is a straw man, right there, designed to attempt to ignore the substance of the original statements. Your hypocrisy is unbelievable.
Did you even read this thread? Or just assumed “anyone suggesting sandboxing wouldn’t work must be an idiot”? Because you’ve managed to misrepresent my comments at every opportunity.
Guava for whatever cool reason, and so on.
No, I prefer what rust is doing. It suits a system programming language. Which is what Rust is.
Not sure what the issue with std::format would be here, you would have to elaborate. Obviously you need to specify a minimum version to have support for it at all.
Not every application requires internationalisation, especially server code or internal company tools.
No, you created two straw men and attacked them, then got upset at me pointing this out, while accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing.
> Or just assumed “anyone suggesting sandboxing wouldn’t work must be an idiot”?
Why, when we could assume malice instead?
> Because you’ve managed to misrepresent my comments at every opportunity.
Maybe it's your comments that are the problem.
I’m not upset at you. I’m just saying you’ve misread the thread and then proceeded to make invalid remarks because of that.
> Maybe it's your comments that are the problem.
I’ve managed to have a civil conversation on this topic with everyone else. Including the person you think I insulted (which I didn’t).
Once again you accuse me of exactly what you have been doing.
The other commenter calling your response "disingenuous" is putting it mildly.
Pity though, I would have been interested to talk to someone who was passionate about this topic.
This would be why I started the thread.