Skip to content
NewA calmer, faster ZeroHour
Researchinfo

C-to-Rust Fallacy: Automatic Refactoring != Memory Security

arXiv cs.CRby Hung-Mao Chen ()1 min read2
Read at arxiv.org
AI summary · grok-4.7Summaries by Vani AI

Study finds most automatic C-to-Rust translations fail to compile or still carry memory bugs.

Researchers evaluated C2Rust-analyze, CROWN, C2SaferRust, and FLOURINE on 116 NIST Juliet C programs that contain memory-security bugs, generating 464 Rust programs. They report that 342 failed to compile, 177 inherited the original memory bugs, and 77 new Rust bugs were introduced. The paper argues current automatic refactoring meets the tools' own safety definitions but does not deliver broader memory security.

Key facts
  • 116 Juliet C programs yielded 464 Rust translations.
  • 342 programs failed to compile and 177 kept original memory bugs.
  • The tools introduced 77 new Rust bugs.
  • Authors say defined safety is not broader memory security.
Analyze this story with Vani AIImpact, who is affected and what defenders should do, in a new chat
Tags
rustc-to-rustmemory-safetyjulietrefactoringc2rustempirical-study
Products
RustC2RustCROWNC2SaferRustFLOURINE
Organizations
NIST

From the original article

1 min read at arxiv.org

Rust has emerged as the leading system programming language, offering strong memory and type safety guarantees without compromising performance. This positions it as a compelling alternative to traditional languages like C and C++, which are susceptible to memory security bugs.

arXiv cs.CR

By Hung-Mao Chen · arxiv.org

Read the full article at arXiv cs.CR

A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.