151–160 of 263 posts
For those who might miss it, the notes cite a new 64-bit version of cdb that supports exabyte databases https://cdb.cr.yp.to Also maybe of interest is that the new cdb subdomain is using pqconnect instead of dnscurve
The notes on using Fil-C were submitted three days ago
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cryptographic software is probably close to a best case scenario since there is very little memory management involved and runtime is dominated by computation in tight loops. As long as Fil-C is able to avoid doing anything expensive in the inner loops you get good performance.
> best case scenario since there is very little memory management involved and runtime is dominated by computation in tight loops. This describes most C programs and many, if not most, C++ programs. Basically, this is how C/C++ code is being written, by avoiding memory management, especially in tight loops.
For those who might miss it, the notes cite a new 64-bit version of cdb that supports exabyte databases https://cdb.cr.yp.to Also maybe of interest is that the new cdb subdomain is using pqconnect instead of dnscurve
"A domain is identified by a domain name, and consists of that part of the domain name space that is at or below the domain name which specifies the domain. A domain is a subdomain of another domain if it is contained within that domain. This relationship can be tested by seeing if the subdomain's name ends with the containing domain's name. For example, A.B.C.D is a subdomain of B.C.D, C.D, D, and " "."
1 cdb.cr.yp.to - regular DNS:
124 bytes, 1+2+0+0 records, response, noerror
query: 1 cdb.cr.yp.to
answer: cdb.cr.yp.to 30 CNAME pq1jbw2qzb2201xj6pyx177b8frqltf7t4wdpp32fhk0w3h70uytq5020w020l0.yp.to
answer: pq1jbw2qzb2201xj6pyx177b8frqltf7t4wdpp32fhk0w3h70uytq5020w020l0.yp.to 30 A 131.193.32.109
(NB. The pq1 portion is not a public key, it is a hash of a server's long-term public key)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HTTPS is there, so you go down to that level only if you want to distrust any element of the public key infrastructure. Which, to be fair, there are plenty of reasons if you are paranoid -- they do tell you who's doing what in a shady way as they revoke, so there's a huge list of transgressions.
It is not only that directly; the domain name might be reassigned to someone else, resulting in a valid certificate which is different than the one you wanted. (If you have the hash of the file which you have verified independently then it is more secure (if the hash algorithm is secure enough), although HTTPS is not needed in that case, it can still be used if you wish to avoid spies knowing which file you accessed.…
If that happens its game over. As the article I linked noted, the attackers can change the installation instructions to anything they want - even for packages that are available in Linux distros.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> best case scenario since there is very little memory management involved and runtime is dominated by computation in tight loops. This describes most C programs and many, if not most, C++ programs. Basically, this is how C/C++ code is being written, by avoiding memory management, especially in tight loops.
This depends heavily on what problem domain you're talking about. For example, a DBMS is necessarily going to shuffle a lot of data into and out of memory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Downloading a deb via a package manager is more secure. Not what I meant. Getting software into 5 different distros and waiting years for it to be available to users is not really viable for most software authors.
I think it would be quite viable if there is any willingness to work with the distributions in the interest in security.
(And when I say fine, I haven't actually used it successfully yet.)
I think distros don't want this though. They all want everyone to use their format, and spend time uploading software into their repo. Which just means that people don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What language do people considering c as an option for a new project consider? Rust is the obvious one we aren't going to discuss because then we won't be able to talk about anything else, Zig is probably almost as well loved and defended, but it isn't actually memory safe, just much easier to be memory safe. As you say, c# and go, also maybe f# and ocaml if we are just writing simple c style stuff none of those woul…
In terms of GC quality, Nim comes to mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, back in the day C was used for everything. Vim was not written in C because it needed to wring every last bit of performance out of text editing. Rewriting everything in rust "for memory-safety" is a false tradeoff given the millions of lines of C code out there and the fact that rewrites always introduce new bugs.
Please, I’m begging you, stop talking about Rust. You’re shoehorning Rust into a discussion where it hasn’t been mentioned, just to hate on some imaginary people you think are pushing Rust here. No one is talking about that. You sound deranged and obsessed. The vast majority of the conversation here is about GC and the performance implications of that. Please stick to the rest of the thread.
DJB SMACKER CONFIRMED?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of GC quality, Nim comes to mind.
I keep ignoring nim for some reason. How fast is it with all the checks on? The benchmarks for it julia, and swift typically turn off safety checks, which is not how I would run them.