A question to security experts reading this thread:
What is your opinion on deploying C++ codebases with mitigations like CFI and bounds checking?
Let's say I have a large C++ codebase which I am unwilling to rewrite in Rust. But I:
* Enable STL bounds checking using appropriate flags (like `-DGLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS`).
* Enable mitigations like CFI and shadow stacks.
How much less safe is "C++ w/ mitigations" than Rust? How much of the "70% CVE" statistic is relevant to such a C++ codebase?
(I've asked this in an earlier thread and also in other forums, but I never really got a response that does not boil down to "only Rust is safe, suck it up!". It also doesn't help that every other thread about C++ is about its memory unsafety...)
What is your opinion on deploying C++ codebases with mitigations like CFI and bounds checking? Let's say I have a large C++ codebase which I am unwilling to rewrite in Rust. But I:
* Enable STL bounds checking using appropriate flags (like `-DGLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS`).
* Enable mitigations like CFI and shadow stacks.
How much less safe is "C++ w/ mitigations" than Rust? How much of the "70% CVE" statistic is relevant to such a C++ codebase?
(I've asked this in an earlier thread and also in other forums, but I never really got a response that does not boil down to "only Rust is safe, suck it up!". It also doesn't help that every other thread about C++ is about its memory unsafety...)