This is what happens when many people hype about a technology that solves a specific class of vulnerabilities, but it is not designed to prevent the others such as logic errors because of human / AI error.

Granted, the uutils authors are well experienced in Rust, but it is not enough for a large-scale rewrite like this and you can't assume that it's "secure" because of memory safety.

In this case, this post tells us that Unix itself has thousands of gotchas and re-implementing the coreutils in Rust is not a silver bullet and even the bugs Unix (and even the POSIX standard) has are part of the specification, and can be later to be revealed as vulnerabilities in reality.

> the uutils authors are well experienced in Rust

I'm not sure that they were all that experienced in Rust when most of this code was written. uutils has been a bit of a "good first rust issue" playground for a lot of its existence

Which makes it pretty unsurprising that the authors also weren't all that well versed in the details of low-level POSIX API

It's not designed to completely eliminate other bug classes but it is designed to reduce the chance that they happen.

In this case the filesystem API was perhaps not as well designed as it could have been. That can potentially be fixed though.

Some of the other bugs would be hard to statically prevent though. But nobody ever claimed otherwise.