Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com) on July 13, 2021 11:31 pm wrote:
> cqwrteur (euloanty.delete@this.live.com) on July 13, 2021 10:16 pm wrote:
> > The largest reason why C++ is not safe (although it is much
> > safer than C) is because of object-oriented programming.
>
> Sure, using str* functions is much safer than using std::string...
>
> > Type confusions, vptr injection or recent new fancy "COOP" (counterfeit object-oriented programming) attack.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDt7Tholxp4
>
> Oh, an attack that is only possible because: C++ does not enforce memory safety! The video
> is an argument against everything you are talking about, not in favor, use a memory safe
> language and such attack would be impossible, not just that attack, but you would prevent
> other attacks such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_buffer_overflow
>
> > You want me to show Rust?
> >
> > https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=rust
> >
> > CVE-2020-25575 ** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** An issue was discovered in the failure crate
> > through 0.1.5 for Rust. It may introduce "compatibility hazards" in some applications, and
> > has a type confusion flaw when downcasting. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products
> > that are no longer supported by the maintainer. NOTE: This may overlap CVE-2019-25010.
> >
> > CVE-2019-25010 An issue was discovered in the failure crate through 2019-11-13
> > for Rust. Type confusion can occur when __private_get_type_id__ is overridden.
>
> Oh, so a bug in an abandoned package, wow.
>
> Really, stop, this is ridiculous, people should be laughing on you now, stop to preserve some respect.
>

I am sorry you are so wrong. If you do not use OOP, you never have any issues with OOP, even without bounds checking. Is that so hard for you to understand.

Let me say again. DO NOT USE OOP. Use C++20 Concepts instead.