Yes, I should not have said “impossible”: nothing is ever impossible to breach. All you can donis to make a breach more expensive to accomplish.

Those separate tpm chips are getting rare… most of the time they are build into the CPU (or firmware) nowadays. That makes sniffing harder, but probably opens other attack vectors.

Anyway: Using a TPM chip makes it more expensive to extract your keys than not using such a chip. So yoj win by using one.

A TPM is a very slow and dumb chip: It can hash data somebody sends to it and it can encrypt and decrypt data slowly. That’s basically it. There is no privacy concern there that I can see. That chip can not read or write memory nor talk to the network.

Together with early boot code in the firmware/bootloader/initrd and later user space that chip can do quite a few cool things.

That code will use the TPM to measure data (create a hash) it loads before transfering control over and then unlock secrets only if the measurements match expected values. There is no way to extract that key on any system with different measurements (like a different computer, or even a different OS on the same computer). I find that pretty interesting and would love to use that, but most distributions do not offer that functionality yet :-(

Using the TPM to unlock the disks is just as secure as leaving the booted computer somewhere. If you trust the machine to not let random people log in, then TPM-based unlocking is fine. If you do not: Stay away.

Extracting the keys locked to an TPM is supposed to be impossible, so you do not need to worry about somebody stealing your keys. That alone makes TPMs very interesting… your own little FIDO tocken build right intomyour machine:-)

“They” did not go anywhere yet. This is a proposal, nothing more. It will take serious discussions over years to get this into C++.

Prominent figures already said they prefer safety profiles as a less intrusive and more C++ approach at conferences It will be fun to watch this and the other safety proposals going forward.

Well, its a brand new standard library. A fresh start.

Read the proposal: Lifetimes annotations, the rust standard library (incl. basic types like Vec, ARc, …), first class tuples, pattern matching, destructive moves, unsafe, it is all in there.

The proposal is really to bolt on Rust to the side of C++, with all the compatibility problems that brings by necessity.

Not only that: It protects your data. The Unix security model is unfortunately stuck in the 1970s: It protects users from each other. That is a wonderful property, but in todays world you also need to protect the users from the applications they are running: Anything running as your user has access to all your data. And on most computer systems the interesting data is the one the users out there: Cryptogrqphic keys, login information, financial information, … . Typically users are much more upset to loose their data than about some virus infecting the OS files, those are trivial to fix.

Running anything as anlther user stops that application from having access to most of your data.

The same happens with any of the new immutable distributions. It’s just less effort as you do not need to do the nix configuration dance anymore.

Any of the many immutable distros (vanilla os, fedora silverblue, bluefin, aeon, endless os, pure os, …) will all obviously work.

Most of your customizations will live in your home directory anyway, so the details of the host OS do not matter too much. As long as it comes with the UI you like, you will be mostly fine. And yku said you like gnome, that installs many apps from flathub anyway and they work just fine from there.

For development work you just set up a distrobox/toolbox container and are ready to go with everything you need. I much prefer that over working on the “real system” as I can have different environments for different projects and do not have to polute my system with all kinds of dependencies that are useless to the functionality of my system.

NixOS is ofmcourse also an option and is quasi-immutable, but it is also much more complicated to manage.

If you could reliably write memory safe code in C++, why do devs put memory safety issues intontheir code bases then?

Even highly paid (and probably skilled) devs in the IT industry manage to mess that up pretty regularly. Even if it was: devs using memory safe languages make much fewer mistakes wrt. managing memory… so that tooling does seem to help them at least more than the C++ tooling helps the C++ devs.

sigh

All build tools are simple as long as nobody uses it. Even CMake was simple before KDE and Co. started to rely on it.

A build tool can be simple, if you use conventions over configuration. Unfortunately that ship has sailed for the C and C++ eco system decades ago… Every project is widely different from every other project out there. Heck, we can not even agree on file extensions for c++ files, let alone a directory structure for project source code to live in or the tooling we want to be available.

So you need to have every little detail configurable… and since all projects are so very different, users will need to tweak all those settings… as the first bigger project adopting abcs will dictate their defaults into your code (where you have not gone with your defaults before).

Seriously, you need a language leadership team that considers tooling as important from the very start or you will not have a simple build tool ever. See rust: There the leaders pushed for tooling from the start. Every rust project looks basically the same because of that. These strong conventions enable the language to have a simple build tool.

C++ is on thenfar side of that. Even in 2020 when introducing modules the committee choose not to mandate even the most basic interoperability features like file extensions. The cmake people had to get several compiler developers to add things to make modules toolable. And even with that effort the meson people seem to say c++ modules are entirely untoolable still.

I’d go for open source projects. They usually have bigger code bases and good practices, that they enforce on their contributors with code reviews and such.

It’s a good way to get feedback on your code, something miss out on personal projects and get much less of in university and corporate projects.

That unfortunately requires setting up email… I have not bothered doing so on my boxes in a very long time.

The biggest factor to me is developer attention. I had a project on gitlab and pushed a README.md with a link to the gitlab instance into github. I got about 10 times more reactions from github, incl. PRs (where the person had grabbed the code from gitlab and did a PR on github anyway) – even in this setup. Mirroring a project to github tilts that even further.

Not being present on github means a lot less users and contributors. As long as that stays this way there is no way around github.

I hope federated forges can move some attention away from github, making other forges more visible… but I am not too optimistic :-(

The blocking certain countries is a US legal thing. It effects any forge in the US and probably in more areas close to the US. As soon as a forge gets big enough to show up on the radar of government orge they will need to do similar blocking.

You can not really blame github for that part.

Rustfmt is not very configurable. That is a wonderful thing: People don’t waste time on discussing different formatting options and every bit of rust code looks pretty identical.

Why would they need to share ssh keys? Ssh will happily accept dozens of allowed keys.

It gets rid of one more SUID binary. That’s always a win for security.

Sudo probably is way more comfortable to use and has way more configurable, too – that usually does not help to make a tool secure either:-)

When I last checked (and that is a long time ago!) it ran everywhere, but did only sandbox the application on ubuntu – while the website claimed cross distribution and secure.

That burned all the trust I had into snaps, I have not looked at them again. Flatpaks work great for me, there is no need to switch to a wannabe walled garden which may or may not work as advertised.

“I find it surprising that the writers of those government documents seem oblivious of the strengths of contemporary C++ and the efforts to provide strong safety guarantees,”

My impression is that they are very aware of the state of C++ and the efforts to provide strong safety guarantees. That’s why they keep raising the pressure.

That depends a lot on how you define “correct C”.

It is harder to write rust code than C code that the compiler will accept. It is IMHO easier to write rust code than to write correct C code, in the sense it only uses well defined constructs defined in the C standard.

The difference is that the rust compiler is much stricter, so you need to know a lot about details in the memory model, etc. to get your code past the compiler. In C you need the same knowledge to debug the program later.