So? The code they wrote doesn't use `unsafe`. So presumably, you need to modify your claim to this then I guess? > A crash on out of bounds will always happen,

So? The code they wrote doesn't use `unsafe`. So presumably, you need to modify your claim to this then I guess? > A crash on out of bounds will always happen, unless unsafe package is being used to subvert memory accesses, or if you've used something that exposes details that only the unsafe package exposes, such as fmt's %p specifier. I mean, you are like, the ultimate pedant, so I figured you'd uniquely appreciate this. You can't just say, "use unsafe or anything that uses unsafe," because it's turtles all the way down. You've got to draw that line somewhere. If the %p specifier really is required for an exploit and there's nothing else that exposes that (sans unsafe), then that's great news! But is that the whole story?