I explained it elsewhere, but basically: an API that needs undocumented escaping doesn’t immediately make you think that the API has huge issues?
Comment on Critical 'BatBadBut' Rust Vulnerability Exposes Windows Systems to Attacks
lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 7 months agoBoth the article and the CVE description point to how Rust handles escaping for CMD arguments. If it’s not a Rust issue then can you explain?
baru@lemmy.world 7 months ago
vanderbilt@lemmy.world 7 months ago
WinAPIs are rife with weirdness like this that has stuck around for backward compatibility reasons. The day MS finally kills win32 will be the day Windows’ security improves tenfold.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
If you read it more attentively, no, it does say that.
I dislike all the “rewrite it in Rust to be secure” bros, but not such a case here.
5C5C5C@programming.dev 7 months ago
Because this is the status of the bug across the standard libraries of various languages, per this article and others:
Notably C and C++ are missing from this list because their standard libraries don’t even offer this capability. Half of these standard libraries are responding to the issue by just warning you about it in the function documentation. Rust is one of the few that actually prevents the attack from happening.
The original BatBadBut bug report used JavaScript to illustrate the vulnerability.