Browsers are increasingly willing to say no to users over HTTPS issues
One of the quiet sea changes that underpins a significant increase in the security of the modern HTTPS web is that browsers are increasingly willing to say no to users. I happen to think that this is a big change, but it's one that didn't really strike me until recently.
There was a time when the fundamental imperative of browsers was that if the user insisted enough, they could go ahead with operations that the browser was pretty sure were a bad idea; attempts to change this back in the days were met by strong pushback. The inevitable result of those decisions was that attackers who wanted to MITM people's HTTPS connections to places like Facebook could often just present a self-signed certificate generated by their MITM interceptor system and have most people accept it. When attackers couldn't do that, they could often force downgrades to unencrypted HTTP (or just stop upgrades from an initial HTTP connection to a HTTPS one); again, these mostly got accepted. People wrote impassioned security advice that boiled down to 'please don't do that' and tweaked and overhauled security warning UIs, but all of it was ultimately somewhat futile because most users just didn't care. They wanted their Facebook, thanks, and they didn't really care (or even read) beyond that.
(There are any number of rational reasons for this, including the often very high rate of false positives in security alerts.)
Over the past few years that has changed. Yes, most of the changes are opt-in on the part of websites, using things like HSTS and HPKP, but the really big sea changes is browsers mostly do not let users override the website settings. Instead, browsers are now willing to hard-fail connections because of HSTS or HPKP settings even if this angers users because they can't get to Facebook or wherever. Yes, browsers have a defense in that the site told them to do this, but in the past I'm not sure this would have cut enough ice to be accepted by browser developers.
(In the process browsers are now willing to let sites commit HSTS or HPKP suicide, with very little chance to recover from eg key loss or inability to offer HTTPS for a while for some reason.)
Obviously related to this is the increasing willingness of browsers to refuse SSL ciphers and so on that are now considered too weak, again pretty much without user overrides. Given that browsers used to accept pretty much any old SSL crap in the name of backwards compatibility, this is itself a welcome change.
(Despite my past views, I think that browsers are making the right overall choice here even if it's probably going to cause me heartburn sooner or later. I previously threw other people under the HTTPS bus in the name of the greater good, so it's only fair that I get thrown under it too sooner or later, and it behooves me to take it with good grace.)
Memory-safe languages and reading very sensitive files
Here is an obvious question: does using modern memory safe languages like Go, Rust, and so on mean that the issues in what I learned from OpenSSH about reading very sensitive files are not all that important? After all, the fundamental problem in OpenSSH came from C's unsafe handling of memory; all of the things I learned just made it worse. As it happens, my view is that if you are writing security sensitive code you should still worry about these things in a memory safe language, because there are things that can still go wrong. So let's talk about them.
I'm not saying that there will be a runtime break in your favorite language. I'm just saying that it seems imprudent to base the entire security of your system on an assumption that there will never be one. Prudence suggests defense in depth, just in case.
The more likely version of the nightmare is a runtime break due to bugs in explicitly 'unsafe' code somewhere in your program's dependencies. Unsafe code explicitly can break language guarantees, and it can show up in any number of places and contexts. For example, the memory safety of calls into many C libraries depends on the programmer doing everything right (and on the C libraries themselves not having memory safety bugs). This doesn't need to happen in the code you're writing; instead it could be down in the dependency of a dependency, something that you may have no idea that you're using.
(A variant is that part of the standard library (or package set) either calls C or does something else marked as unsafe. Go code will call the C library to do some sorts of name resolution, for example.)
Finally, even if the runtime is perfectly memory safe it's possible for your code to accidentally leak data from valid objects. Take buffer handling, for example. High performance code often retains and recycles already allocated buffers rather than churning the runtime memory allocator with a stream of new buffer allocations, which opens you up to old buffer contents leaking because things were not completely reset when one was reused. Or maybe someone accidentally used a common, permanently allocated global temporary buffer somewhere, and with the right sequence of actions an attacker can scoop out sensitive data from it. There are all sorts of variants that are at least possible.
The good news is that the scope of problems is narrower at this level. Since what you're leaking is the previous state of a specific valid object, an attacker needs the previous state of that sort of object to be something damaging. You don't get the kind of arbitrary crossovers of data that you do with full memory leaks. Still, leaks in a central type of object (such as 'generic byte buffers') could be damaging enough.
The bad news is that your memory safe language cannot save you from this sort of leak, because it's fundamentally an algorithmic mistake. Your code and the language is doing exactly what you told it to, and in a safe way; it is just that what you told it to do is a bad idea.
(Use of unsafe code, C libraries, various sorts of object recycling, and so on is not necessarily obvious, either. With the best of intentions, packages and code that you use may well hide all of this from you in the name of 'it's an implementation detail' (and they may change it over time for the same reason). They're not wrong, either, it's just that because of how you're using their code it's become a security sensitive implementation detail.)