From the conclusion:
The authoring agencies urge executives of software manufacturers to prioritize using MSLs [memory-safe languages] in their products and to demonstrate that commitment by writing and publishing memory safe roadmaps. The authoring agencies encourage software manufacturers to lead from the top by publicly naming a business executive who will personally drive the elimination of memory safety vulnerabilities from the product line.
They are absolutely right, but will be interesting to see the reaction from the tinfoil hat lot.
I am immediately suspicious of anything the NSA recommeds. Iโll buy extra tin foil if I have to, but this is also the agency encouraging organizations to use cryptography that they have backdoors into. They are not your friends, and anything with their name on it deserves skepticism.
The last thing I want is the NSA recommending my software. Itโs cause for minor panic and a thorough review.
Thatโs reverse psychology. They know everyone will lose trust in Rust and go back to memory unsafe languages so they can hack our software again.
- put my tin foil hat aside -
Thatโs exactly what they think youโre thinking about what they think you thought they were thinking, I wouldnโt fall for it
You might want to have a relook at your own statement here. Itโs got a load of paranoia. Paranoia beyond common sense and realistic threat assessment is unhealthy.
As for the NSA, itโs like they have a split personality (which I think is true for anyone in their position). Their job isnโt all about stealing information. They also have the mandate to secure their own and their alliesโ assets. After all, who knows whatโs more vulnerable to thievery than an experienced thief? Their job is as much to harden security as it is to compromise.
Finally, their statement is to move to a safe language - one of which is Rust. For your apprehensions about their backdoors to be true, theyโd have to compromise every memory safe language out there - Rust, Go, Swift, Nimโฆ Thereโs reason to be suspicious if they recommend only one language (that is more or less what happened with the NIST pseudorandom generator algorithm). But that isnโt the case here.
And you need to assess statements on their own merit - not based on who says it. What they say is true even in our personal experiences. Itโs been shown statistically that people write much fewer bugs (memory safety bugs are a huge class) with safe languages. Iโm not even confident of writing correct C programs these days. Honestly, if your paranoia is true, then itโs easier for the NSA to recommend everyone to write in C or C++. That way people will write careless mistakes that they can exploit. And C/C++ usage is way more than for Rust or anything else. Theyโd target C/C++ compilers and standards to increase their impact.
