Yes, but you specifically said that Heartbleed wasn't a memory safety violation, when in fact OpenSSL-vulnerable-to-Heartbleed can segfault on over-read. So what is it?
But Heartbleed still existed even without out-of-bound reads, right? That's the critical distinction I got wrong and why Ted made his rather fine point. In Ted post, IIRC, he's clear that Rust will unlikely have such needed up code written. But that if people like me boast how Rust would have flat-out refused to compile such code, then we don't know the details and probably aren't in a position to be spouting off on security. A one or two word edit of my original comment would have avoided this whole discussion while retaining the essence that Rust would, in practice, almost certainly eliminate these bugs.