That's still a bug. I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse about what's considered to be a security problem in code. Nobody ever suggested that rust code can never crash or have bugs. It's just about memory safety, which obviously has nothing to do with door locks.
Sorry if I gave that impression. It was not my intention.
> A crash is a bug but not a security problem.
I think that all bugs, the ones that produces crashes and security bugs should be all treated equally. A bug is a bug, whenever it has security implications or not.
To me, the article gives the impression that a system crash is not a security problem, because a Rust program will "terminate in a controlled fashion, preventing any illegal access". But one for example, can fingerprint a system by forcing it to crash.
And of course, nobody expects that Rust will prevent bugs from happening, but at the same time I don't get why the fixation of setting a difference between security bugs and bugs.
"Families are LOCKED OUT of or INSIDE their homes as Yale 'smart' security app crashes leaving dozens stranded"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6268379/People-lock...
"Households up and down the UK were unable to lock or unlock their doors"
An unlocked door it's a security problem too...