Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. At NDSS 2026, @dwallach outlined DARPA's plan to solve memory safety bugs using AI.

At NDSS 2026, @dwallach outlined DARPA's plan to solve memory safety bugs using AI.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
8 Posts 2 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
    joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
    joebeone@techpolicy.social
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    At NDSS 2026, @dwallach outlined DARPA's plan to solve memory safety bugs using AI. But the real rabbit hole is what happens next: securing hardware against physical decay. My new post on scaling election security principles to the global Internet: https://josephhall.org/blog/wallach-mem-safety-sw-independence/ 1/6

    joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ joebeone@techpolicy.social

      But perfect code exposes a deeper crisis. What happens when flawless software runs on imperfect, degrading hardware? As chips shrink and age, we see a rise in Silent Data Corruptions (SDCs) where hyperscale silicon confidently returns the wrong math. 4/6

      joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
      joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
      joebeone@techpolicy.social
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      To survive hardware betrayal, DARPA's COOP program treats the processor as a black box. By monitoring physical exhaust like power fluctuations and EM emissions, COOP uses the analog signature of the chip as an undeniable oracle for digital correctness. 5/6

      joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ joebeone@techpolicy.social

        Now at DARPA, Dan is scaling software independence to the entire Internet. The TRACTOR program is tackling the legacy C/C++ bottleneck, using advanced AI to translate unsafe code into structurally verified, idiomatic Rust without crushing performance overhead. 3/6

        joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
        joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
        joebeone@techpolicy.social
        wrote last edited by
        #3

        But perfect code exposes a deeper crisis. What happens when flawless software runs on imperfect, degrading hardware? As chips shrink and age, we see a rise in Silent Data Corruptions (SDCs) where hyperscale silicon confidently returns the wrong math. 4/6

        joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ joebeone@techpolicy.social

          At NDSS 2026, @dwallach outlined DARPA's plan to solve memory safety bugs using AI. But the real rabbit hole is what happens next: securing hardware against physical decay. My new post on scaling election security principles to the global Internet: https://josephhall.org/blog/wallach-mem-safety-sw-independence/ 1/6

          joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
          joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
          joebeone@techpolicy.social
          wrote last edited by
          #4

          Watching Dan's keynote brought me back to our days at the NSF ACCURATE center. Our work in election verification relied on Rivest and Wack's "software independence": the principle that a system must be structurally verifiable because software itself cannot be trusted. 2/6

          joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ joebeone@techpolicy.social

            To survive hardware betrayal, DARPA's COOP program treats the processor as a black box. By monitoring physical exhaust like power fluctuations and EM emissions, COOP uses the analog signature of the chip as an undeniable oracle for digital correctness. 5/6

            joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
            joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
            joebeone@techpolicy.social
            wrote last edited by
            #5

            We are moving past the era of patching buffer overflows. By enforcing structural verification in software and physical verification in hardware, we are building infrastructure where trust is mathematically and physically guaranteed. More: https://josephhall.org/blog/wallach-mem-safety-sw-independence/ 6/6

            darkuncle@infosec.exchangeD 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ joebeone@techpolicy.social

              Watching Dan's keynote brought me back to our days at the NSF ACCURATE center. Our work in election verification relied on Rivest and Wack's "software independence": the principle that a system must be structurally verifiable because software itself cannot be trusted. 2/6

              joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
              joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
              joebeone@techpolicy.social
              wrote last edited by
              #6

              Now at DARPA, Dan is scaling software independence to the entire Internet. The TRACTOR program is tackling the legacy C/C++ bottleneck, using advanced AI to translate unsafe code into structurally verified, idiomatic Rust without crushing performance overhead. 3/6

              joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ joebeone@techpolicy.social

                We are moving past the era of patching buffer overflows. By enforcing structural verification in software and physical verification in hardware, we are building infrastructure where trust is mathematically and physically guaranteed. More: https://josephhall.org/blog/wallach-mem-safety-sw-independence/ 6/6

                darkuncle@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                darkuncle@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                darkuncle@infosec.exchange
                wrote last edited by
                #7

                @joebeone love this thread, although it does make me think about the other unfixed problem: even if the software and the hardware run flawlessly, they still only do what humans have programmed in; how do we solve for the common case of code that does what I said but not what I meant?

                joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • darkuncle@infosec.exchangeD darkuncle@infosec.exchange

                  @joebeone love this thread, although it does make me think about the other unfixed problem: even if the software and the hardware run flawlessly, they still only do what humans have programmed in; how do we solve for the common case of code that does what I said but not what I meant?

                  joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  joebeone@techpolicy.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  joebeone@techpolicy.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #8

                  @darkuncle that's a great point and I think we are very far from "fixing human" ::) (I'd be interested in your thoughts on the full piece if you have time)

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  Reply
                  • Reply as topic
                  Log in to reply
                  • Oldest to Newest
                  • Newest to Oldest
                  • Most Votes


                  • Login

                  • Login or register to search.
                  • First post
                    Last post
                  0
                  • Categories
                  • Recent
                  • Tags
                  • Popular
                  • World
                  • Users
                  • Groups