[Not really OT] Crowdstrike Analysis: It was a NULL pointer from the memory unsafe C++ language.

[Timon Gehr]

On 7/25/24 19:09, Walter Bright wrote:
> How can Rust be safe

Rust is indeed a memory-unsafe language. Yet better memory safety is one 
of its key features.

Rust had its share of controversy over popular libraries with memory 
safety bugs. However, those were unintentional.

Also:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/labels/I-unsound
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/25860 (open since 2015)
https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs

> if programmers can just slap on the "unsafe" attribute?
> 

(The "unsafe" attribute is not a memory safety problem. Lack of the 
"unsafe" attribute on a function with a memory-unsafe interface is.)

It's a question of the community culture. Do Rust programmers _actually_ 
put "unsafe" blocks everywhere, carelessly? This is exactly what this is 
about.

I am taking issue with throwing overboard even the aspiration of memory 
safety. You won't get D widely recognized as a safer language if its 
ecosystem is actively encouraged to build on careless `@trusted` 
slapping-on, even on functions where it is completely obvious that they 
have an unsafe interface.