Quick overview: The White House recommends switching from C and C++ to memory-safe languages like Rust, Go, or Python to enhance <a href="https://www.emveep.com/blog/companies-worried-cybersecurity/">cybersecurity</a>.
The White House has released a strong recommendation for software developers to move away from using <a href="https://www.emveep.com/blog/c-plus-plus-are-growing-on-popularity/">C and C++</a>, instead adopting memory-safe languages. There&#8217;s a major reason behind this push: rampant cybersecurity threats that exploit the vulnerabilities inherent in these older languages.
<h2>The Security Risks of C and C++</h2>
While C and C++ remain incredibly popular in many applications, their power comes with a significant cost. These languages give developers direct control over memory allocation and management. This control is vital for performance but can be a security nightmare. Errors like buffer overflows and use-after-free bugs are notoriously common in C and C++ programs, and these often provide the entry point for malicious attacks.
Studies repeatedly show that a majority of security vulnerabilities stem from memory management errors. <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-70-percent-of-all-security-bugs-are-memory-safety-issues/">Microsoft</a> alone found 70% of vulnerabilities in their products could be traced to weaknesses in C and C++ code.
<h2>Memory-Safe Languages: Shifting the Burden</h2>
Languages like Rust, Go, Python, and others are considered memory-safe. They feature built-in protections like automatic garbage collection and bounds checking. These safeguards eliminate entire classes of potential memory-related exploits. By using memory-safe languages, developers shift responsibility for preventing <a href="https://www.emveep.com/blog/vulnerabilities-web-app/">many vulnerabilities</a> to the language itself, instead of relying solely on their error-prone coding.
<h2>Why Not Just Drop C and C++?</h2>
If memory-safe languages are superior, why the continued reliance on C and C++? There are a few key reasons:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Legacy Code: Vast amounts of critical infrastructure are built on C and C++. Rewriting everything would be costly and time-consuming.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Performance: C and C++ are often favored for applications where speed is paramount, like game engines and operating systems.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Inertia: Many developers are deeply familiar with C and C++. Learning new languages takes time and investment.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Finding a New Balance</h2>
The White House isn&#8217;t suggesting a complete abandonment of C and C++. Instead, the recommendation encourages using these powerful languages more selectively. The focus should be on:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">New Development: Prioritizing memory-safe languages for new projects whenever possible.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Refactoring: Gradually replacing or refactoring critical components of existing C/C++ code with memory-safe alternatives.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Educating Developers: Promoting the advantages of memory-safe languages and providing resources for upskilling</li>
</ul>
<h2>Challenges of Transitioning Away from C and C++</h2>
The White House&#8217;s call for change, while vital for cybersecurity, isn&#8217;t without hurdles:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The Legacy Problem: Systems from power grids to medical devices rely on C/C++ code. Completely replacing these systems becomes monumentally expensive, and risky, and could even introduce new vulnerabilities during the transition.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Performance Overhead: Memory-safe languages sometimes carry a performance cost due to their safeguards. This is less true with newer languages like Rust but can be a concern in real-time systems or high-performance computing.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Developer Expertise: While the community around memory-safe languages is growing, there&#8217;s still a larger base of experienced C/C++ programmers. Training or hiring for alternative languages adds to the cost of change.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ecosystem and Libraries The support around C and C++ built up over decades, can be far more comprehensive than that for newer languages. This makes rewriting existing components or finding pre-built solutions more difficult.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Mitigating Challenges and Promoting Adoption of Memory-Safe Languages</h2>
The transition to memory-safe development isn&#8217;t an all-or-nothing proposition. Here are strategies for success:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Prioritize New Projects: When building greenfield applications, default to memory-safe languages whenever possible. This reduces future security burdens from the start.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Identify Critical Components: Audit existing C/C++ codebases to find the most sensitive sections – those handling user data, authentication, or interfacing with external networks. Target these for refactoring or replacement.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Incremental Adoption: Rewriting entire systems is impractical. Look for opportunities to add components or services developed in memory-safe languages and interface them with legacy code.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Hybrid Solutions: Sometimes, critical performance bottlenecks within a mostly safe application need to be written in C/C++. Extra care in developing, testing, and isolating these sections becomes essential.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Government and Industry Collaboration: Funding for open-source development, code audits, and the creation of secure libraries in memory-safe languages accelerates the transition process.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Training and Education: Promote learning pathways for both new and experienced developers to gain proficiency in memory-safe languages.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Final Word </h2>
The White House&#8217;s guidance is a stark reminder that our increasingly connected world demands a proactive cybersecurity approach. While the shift towards memory-safe languages presents challenges, it&#8217;s an investment in a more secure future. Developers, organizations, and the tech industry broadly need to embrace these changes with a collaborative spirit. By prioritizing secure coding practices, supporting education and training, and incrementally transitioning to memory-safe languages, <a href="https://www.emveep.com/services/">we can create a digital infrastructure</a> far more resistant to cyber-attacks.

Why the White House is Asking Programmers to Avoid C & C++

Table of Contents

Related Articles

Menu

Web Development

Mobile Development

Technologies

Have a question regarding your next project?