Why the US Government Demands Memory‑Safe Languages by 2026 – What It Means for C++ Developers

US Government’s Hard‑Line Stance on Software Security

The U.S. Federal Government, through CISA and the FBI, has issued a strong warning against dangerous software development practices, especially the use of non‑memory‑safe languages such as C and C++. The agencies state that continuing to rely on these languages in products supporting critical infrastructure or national critical functions significantly raises risks to national security, economic security, and public health.

Bad Practices Categorized

The report groups unsafe practices into three categories:

Product attributes – visible security‑related quality attributes of the software.

Security functions – the security capabilities the product claims to provide.

Organizational processes and policies – actions taken by developers to ensure transparency and safety.

The guidance targets all software vendors that develop products for critical infrastructure, including on‑premise software, cloud services, and SaaS offerings.

2026 Migration Deadline

Enterprises must publish a clear memory‑safe migration roadmap by 1 January 2026. Products lacking such a roadmap will be deemed risky, increasing the likelihood of national‑level security incidents.

Additionally, vendors are required to eliminate all default passwords in administrator accounts by the same deadline and to adopt secure development practices such as publishing vulnerability disclosure policies, issuing CVEs for critical bugs, and retaining security logs for at least six months.

Industry Response and Open‑Source Guidance

More than 230 software vendors have voluntarily pledged to the CISA “Secure Design” program, committing to goals such as reducing default passwords, increasing multi‑factor authentication, and eliminating specific vulnerability classes.

The report also stresses responsible open‑source usage: maintaining a software bill of materials (SBOM), caching dependencies instead of pulling directly from public sources, and contributing back to upstream projects.

Further recommendations include publishing clear vulnerability disclosure policies, issuing CVEs for critical issues, providing detailed security documentation, and maintaining security logs for six months.

C++ Creator Bjarne Stroustrup’s Counter‑Argument

In response to the government’s push for memory‑safe languages, Bjarne Stroustrup, the creator of C++, argues that a wholesale replacement of C/C++ is unrealistic. He points out that large legacy codebases written in COBOL and Fortran cannot be migrated quickly due to cost and risk.

Stroustrup emphasizes that C++ has evolved to incorporate safety features such as RAII, containers, and smart pointers, and that security improvements should be incremental rather than a complete language switch.

He also warns that many “safe” languages still rely on C/C++ for low‑level operations, and that forcing a migration could create interoperability challenges across dozens of languages in the future.

Stroustrup concludes that gradual, tool‑driven improvements to C++ security are more practical than abandoning the language entirely.