> I mean, Rust is fast and secure and makes my software "unhackable" for the price of a bit slower development? Seems like an obvious choice then. Something be

> I mean, Rust is fast and secure and makes my software "unhackable" for the price of a bit slower development? Seems like an obvious choice then. Something being written in Rust doesn't mean it's unhackable. It lowers the likelihood of memory safety errors to the point of them being negligible, and a lot libraries will have APIs that encourage correct usage by default. But your application can still have a bug, and that big can still be exploitable. For example, if you're making a file transfer application where the sender has control over the path to be written, and you don't make an explicit check for path traversal on the receiver, a malicious sender can overwrite any file the receiver process has write access to in the entire filesystem. Rust didn't protect you there from an exploitable bug. You could make an API where that won't happen unless you opt into arbitrary path traversal, but that is not what most libraries, including std, do. I don't say this to mean "Rust bad", but rather "don't be mislead by imprecise language about what Rust gives you". You can write bugs in any language. The extent of the blast radius is different per language.