Still not getting your point. Is there a reason I should read about Redishell?

Not destroyed yet though, and very simple to fix

the only loss here is my time as a moderator :P

I value mine more than yours, sorry.

Do keep in mind that all this has a lot of “editor wars” vibes. But the conflict goes beyond Debian (e.g. including Rust in Linux kernel), and actual harmful discussions between Rust and C/C++ people is REAL, damaging our communities, and very much driven by generations/ network-effect. And this is just sad. It’s not a technical issue, and overcoming it seems nearly impossible at the moment.

Is this the reason you give me a “warning” later in your reply? I’m not getting the exact point clearly. This topic is “harmful,” but I don’t think you warned everyone else discussing it? So what is the actual warning? Are you telling me not to reply in threads on this topic in the future?

backdoors to me are a smaller concern in the software industry nowadays in comparison to the Redishell provided that you were unable to fully understand

Backdoors are a top priority concern in consumer electronics. I hope nobody lets themselves be mislead on that fact here.

I have no idea what “Redishell” is. I don’t think there was any point in this thread where I said anything about it, so what are you talking about with me being “unable to fully understand” it? Couldn’t you try telling me what it is and checking how much I understand before saying that? Am I totally forgetting something?

Whatever it is, it sounds like you’re implying it’s a security vulnerability that cannot be a backdoor, which I definitely don’t understand when I have no idea what it is.

deleted by creator

Then I get half of a not-top-2 distro. And even the “giants” (Ubuntu / Fedora) are too small to develop full stability for their half-distros. Bad situation

systemd

Looks like it’s already time to move away from MX Linux. That sucks. Whole Linux ecosystem back to getting worse instead of better?

That all lines up with what I’ve heard. Thanks for the comprehensive reply 🤙

deleted by creator

Nice, thank you

Why?

So this link shows a comment for you, not just a blank space? https://piefed.social/post/1458050/comment/8784509#replies

Here’s a screenshot of what I’m seeing

Nope, not seeing it there

Weak gaslighting attempt but if you could show me where to find it documented I would appreciate that.

If anyone is confused, feel free to ask me for proof I’m telling the truth. If I posted it here, I’m pretty sure I’d be at risk of getting banned for evading the post removal (because the proof would also lead you back to the reply chain that was removed)

Edit - maybe this counts as proof without showing any removed content:

https://piefed.social/post/1458050/comment/8784509#replies

If you click the link, it’s blank, yet it has a “parent comment” link that leads to where I was replying

Edit 2 - tried to post an archive link but archive.org didn’t seem to work the way I thought?

Is the link I posted above showing what I described for other users?

Strange how your bad faith reply is still here, and with many upvotes, while my reply calling you out appears to be gone.

This is an example of how discussions like this are more appropriate for nostr, where there are no bans / post removals.

Essentially, yeah.

Noticed an overall “vibe” where Rust critics repeatedly have points that sound like they make sense, and I can’t really think of examples of them saying confusing nonsense, or refusing to elaborate on a point when challenged to. Whereas, other way around for Rust defenders.

Best way I know to determine what’s “sus” is to look at what’s defended by people who are willing to elaborate on the points you ask them to elaborate on. It’s almost a perfect gauge. But maybe not quite perfect, and you could totally call it “vibes.” I remain not totally certain about Rust.

What do you mean?

You self admittidly don’t know code, so like, why are you trying to argue about code?

Because the level of knowledge that would stop you from rephrasing my words into “don’t know code” is much higher than the level of knowledge I’m using in the argument.

That’s like a DJ and a Barber arguing over which carbueretor jet is correct in a classic Mercedes. The answer is muddier and than either of them know enough to understand, because they’re not mechanics or engineers.

How is that like an unpaid cybersecurity expert arguing about cybersecurity then?

Are you a programmer?

Already answered this and you acknowledged that in the beginning. It’s becoming clearer and clearer you’re replying in purely bad faith.

Cybersecurity researcher?

Kinda, but not really.

Bot designed to sow discontent with pretty arguement?

Obviously not, and now it seems like you’re trying to bait me into the kind of response that could get me banned here. This discussion would be more appropriate for nostr, where no one can be banned.

Like, what’s the point of all this?

The main point of your gish gallop is to waste my time and energy and confuse other people.

The main point on my side of the discussion has been to raise awareness of how concerned the general public should be (and sadly isn’t) about the general state of cybersecurity right now, especially in vital areas like how the Linux ecosystem and coding languages themselves are developing.

Neither of you know what you’re talking about

Incorrect. I have talked about, for example, a user’s statements in a discussion I linked to. I know this. You can’t really provide an example of anything I’ve mentioned here that I don’t know about.

You could use “don’t know what you’re talking about” as a euphemism for how the person I was replying to was spewing bullshit, but I’d just call them a liar. Seems more straightforward. Either way, that’s not me.

don’t even know what you’re talking about but I can clearly read the vibes based technobabble between you

I think in this context, you should be trying to ignore the vibes and understand what’s being said.

so like, why?

Awareness should be raised for this stuff, because people are sadly not as concerned as they should be about the state of cybersecurity right now. It’s particularly an issue in Linux / FOSS circles where there seems to be more of a false sense of security these days.

For anyone confused:

• Make sure you know exactly what “compiler” and “backdoor” mean. With that, you can probably skip the rest of this comment.
• aubeynarf seems to be framing things in a way that might make you think C is immune to compiler backdoors, and might also make you think we’re in agreement on that point. That’s based on absolutely nothing. C has no special resistance to compiler backdoors. I hear Rust introduces new risk here, but I don’t see any reason to reframe that as all the risk with C being in other areas.
• aubeynarf seems to be framing things in a way that might make you think security exploits all have similar levels of severity. Like, if you make a list of 100 exploits, it will be about the same severity as any other list of 100 exploits. That is not true. Scoring would be based on what damage the exploits can do, not how many there are.
• If aubeynarf’s framing makes it seem like known exploits are scored by sheer quantity, that would also imply security experts put a lot of focus on “scoring” known exploits at all. We don’t. We might put a lot of energy into counting and scoring unknown exploits if we could, but we can’t, so this is again not an honest mistake or a slight twist from reality - it’s completely made up from nothing. Not only would quantity be unrelated if we did have a big use for scoring known exploits, but we don’t. Known exploits are not unknown exploits. We’re trying to expose unknown exploits, and fix them. Counting and scoring the known ones is just something that happens along the way. We would never weigh the entire concept of compiler backdoors by counting the ones we’ve identified.
• aubeynarf seems to be framing things to set an impression of “oh this guy knows what he’s talking about and he thinks compiler backdoors are no big deal, so they must be no big deal.” If you fall for that, there’s not much I or anyone can do for you.

While you’re spouting nonsense

I’m the guy you were replying to here. I’m not spouting any nonsense in this thread. Did you reply to the wrong person, or is this a false accusation?

this is happening:

https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/11/redis-vulnerability-redishell/

The vulnerability exploits a 13-year-old UAF memory corruption bug in Redis, allowing a post-auth attacker to send a crafted Lua script to escape the default Lua sandbox and execute arbitrary native code. This grants full host access, enabling data theft, wiping, encryption, resource hijacking, and lateral movement within cloud environments.

13 years. That’s how long it took to find a critical safety vulnerability in one of the most popular C open source codebases, Redis. This is software that was expertly written by some of the best engineers in the world and yet, mistakes can still happen! It’s just that in C a “mistake” can often mean a memory-safety bug that would put user data at risk (…) That’s the nature of memory-safety bugs in C: they can hide in plain sight.

Why did you make me read these paragraphs without explaining how they connect to the context? Let me guess: they don’t connect to the context, you’re just designing your replies to mislead people dumb enough to be vulnerable to your manipulation tactics? With no consideration for me whose time/energy you’re wasting, much less them who you’re confusing?

You care

About random numbers? Not really

you are the one that brought it up as an issue with rust.

Are you referring to where I said “I want to know some random numbers Rust isn’t giving me, and that’s a problem with Rust?”

Because that was in your imagination.

Or are you referring to where I said “Rust wants to know some random numbers it isn’t giving itself?”

Because that was also in your imagination.

In reality, I brought up that I’ve heard Rust adds another layer of trusting the compiler isn’t backdoored.