Nvidia's security team advocates shifting away from C/C++ due to its susceptibility to memory-related vulnerabilities, which account for a significant portion of their reported security issues. They propose embracing memory-safe languages like Rust, Go, and Java to improve the security posture of their products and reduce the time and resources spent on vulnerability remediation. While acknowledging the performance benefits often associated with C/C++, they argue that modern memory-safe languages offer comparable performance while significantly mitigating security risks. This shift requires overcoming challenges like retraining engineers and integrating new tools, but Nvidia believes the long-term security gains outweigh the transitional costs.
In a 2022 blog post titled "Nvidia Security Team: 'What if we just stopped using C?'" hosted on the AdaCore blog, the author discusses a presentation given by Nvidia's security team exploring the possibility of transitioning away from C and C++ in their codebase due to the inherent security risks associated with these languages. The post emphasizes the prevalence of memory safety vulnerabilities, such as buffer overflows, use-after-free errors, and double frees, which plague C and C++ development and contribute significantly to exploitable security flaws. These vulnerabilities arise from the manual memory management paradigm prevalent in these languages, giving developers extensive control over memory allocation and deallocation, but also leaving them prone to errors.
The Nvidia team highlighted the increasing cost and complexity of mitigating these vulnerabilities, outlining the various techniques they currently employ, including code reviews, static analysis tools, and dynamic analysis tools like sanitizers. While acknowledging the effectiveness of these methods to a certain extent, they pointed out that these strategies are reactive rather than preventative and require significant ongoing investment. Furthermore, these mitigations don't address the root cause of the problem: the inherent unsafety of manual memory management.
The post then elaborates on Nvidia's exploration of alternative, memory-safe languages like Rust, Go, and Ada. The blog post focuses particularly on Ada and SPARK, a formally verifiable subset of Ada, emphasizing their robust type system, compile-time error checking, and built-in memory safety features as attractive alternatives to the vulnerabilities of C and C++. The argument presented is that these languages, through their design and features, inherently prevent many of the memory-related vulnerabilities that plague C and C++, leading to more secure code by design.
While acknowledging the significant undertaking of migrating away from a large, established C/C++ codebase, the Nvidia team expressed a belief that the long-term benefits in terms of improved security, reduced development costs associated with vulnerability mitigation, and a more robust and reliable software ecosystem justify the investment. The post concludes by highlighting Ada and SPARK as strong contenders for replacing C and C++ in safety-critical and security-sensitive applications, and portrays Nvidia's exploration as a significant indication of the growing industry interest in memory-safe languages for mitigating increasingly prevalent and costly security vulnerabilities. This exploration signals a potential shift in programming paradigms for large organizations concerned with software security, moving towards languages that prioritize memory safety by design.
Summary of Comments ( 148 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42998383
Hacker News commenters largely agree with the AdaCore blog post's premise that C is a major source of vulnerabilities. Many point to Rust as a viable alternative, highlighting its memory safety features and performance. Some discuss the practical challenges of transitioning away from C, citing legacy codebases, tooling, and the existing expertise surrounding C. Others explore alternative approaches like formal verification or stricter coding standards for C. A few commenters push back on the idea of abandoning C entirely, arguing that its performance benefits and low-level control are still necessary for certain applications, and that focusing on better developer training and tools might be a more effective solution. The trade-offs between safety and performance are a recurring theme.
The Hacker News post titled "Nvidia Security Team: “What if we just stopped using C?” (2022)" has generated a lively discussion with numerous comments. Many commenters agree with the premise that C is inherently unsafe and contributes significantly to software vulnerabilities. Several suggest Rust as a strong contender for replacing C, citing its memory safety features and performance characteristics.
A recurring theme is the inertia within organizations and the perceived cost and effort of transitioning away from C. Some commenters express skepticism about the feasibility of such a move, particularly in large, established codebases. Others counter this by arguing that the long-term benefits of improved security and reduced maintenance outweigh the initial investment.
Several compelling comments delve deeper into specific aspects:
The comments overall reflect a general sentiment that while moving away from C is a significant undertaking, it is a necessary step towards building more secure and reliable software. The discussion acknowledges the complexities and challenges involved but also expresses optimism about the potential benefits and the growing momentum behind safer alternatives like Rust.