Except it's actually an "Every language and library that provides this feature" problem because literally no one was aware that this sanitization problem even existed, and Rust is among the first to actually fix it.
Because this is the status of the bug across the standard libraries of various languages, per this article and others:
Erlang (documentation update)
Go (documentation update)
Haskell (patch available)
Java (won’t fix)
Node.js (patch will be available)
PHP (patch will be available)
Python (documentation update)
Ruby (documentation update)
Notably C and C++ are missing from this list because their standard libraries don't even offer this capability. Half of these standard libraries are responding to the issue by just warning you about it in the function documentation. Rust is one of the few that actually prevents the attack from happening.
The original BatBadBut bug report used JavaScript to illustrate the vulnerability.
If the issue exists in the standard library of every language that provides this capability and Rust's standard library is the first to fix it, how is it a Rust issue?
It would be more accurate to say that it's an issue in almost every language EXCEPT Rust at this point.
The only reason it isn't being called a C or C++ issue is because their standard libraries don't even attempt to offer this capability. But you can bet that all sorts of C/C++ libraries that do offer this, like Qt, will also be having this issue.
Funny how the headline makes it sound like a Rust specific problem, as if the Rust language is unsafe or the core team was incompetent, but then other affected language standard libraries include
Erlang (documentation update)
Go (documentation update)
Haskell (patch available)
Java (won’t fix)
Node.js (patch will be available)
PHP (patch will be available)
Python (documentation update)
Ruby (documentation update)
So actually this is a vulnerability that originates in Windows, and Rust and Haskell are the only languages that are actually protecting users from it as of right now, with Node.js and PHP to follow.
The key sentence in the post you linked which constituted more than 50% of the words being stated by the poster and yet you somehow conveniently missed which completely negates the whole narrative that you're trying to promote:
Speaking as an open source maintainer, if a tech company would like to pay me to do ~anything for my open source project, we can sit down and talk about my rates.
Which means this person is NOT simply a volunteer as you insinuated here:
When someone suggested a level of effort to be put on code checked in to prevent security issues from happening, the maintainer pushed back, stating that they will decide what level of effort they'll put in, because they're doing the work on a volunteer basis.
but in fact is available to be paid a fair rate for the labor they perform. In fact your entire description of the post is mischaracterizing what is being said in the post.
I don't know how you could have accidentally missed or misinterpreted one of the two sentences being said by the poster, and the longer of the two sentences at that. It was also the first sentence in the poster's statement. It seems more likely to me that you missed that on purpose rather than by accident. Maybe you're just so eager to find evidence to match your narrative that your brain registered the entire point of the post incorrectly. Allow me to reframe what's being said to simplify the matter:
As a self-employed contractor, if you demand that I perform free labor for you, I will decline that request.
Now just add a much more frustrated tone to the above and you get the post you linked.
You're either intentionally misrepresenting the post or you failed to understand them correctly. I'll let you take your pick for which is less embarrassing for you.
Security does not depend entirely on the maintainer, and there is recourse even in the worst case scenario of an uncooperative or malicious maintainer.
The maintainer you quoted said he would be open to complying with requests if the requesters were willing to provide monetary support. You are intentionally misrepresenting their position.
The alternative of closed source software doesn't actually protect you from security issues, it just makes it impossible for any users to know if the software has been compromised. For all you know, a closed source software product could be using one of the hypothetical compromised open source software project that you're so afraid of, and you would never actually know.
If you're willing to pay a license for a private corporation's closed source software so you get the pleasure of never being able to know your security posture, then why would you be unwilling to financially support open source developers so they have the resources they need to have the level of security that you'd like from them?
That link doesn't prove whatever you think it's proving.
The open source ecosystem does not rely (exclusively) on project maintainers to ensure security. Security audits are also done by major enterprise-grade distribution providers like Red Hat Enterprise. There are other stakeholders in the community as well who have a vested interest in security, including users in military, government, finance, health care, and academic research, who will periodically audit open source code that they're using.
When those organizations do their audits, they will typically report issues they find through appropriate channels which may include maintainers, distributors, and the MITRE Corporation, depending on the nature of the issue. Then remedial actions will be taken that depend on the details of the situation.
In the worst case scenario if an issue exists in an open source project that has an unresponsive or unhelpful maintainer (which I assume is what you were suggesting by providing that link), then there are several possible courses of action:
Distribution providers will roll back the package to an earlier compatible version that doesn't have the vulnerability if possible
Someone will fork the project and patch the fix (if the license allows), and distribution providers will switch to the fork
In the worst case scenario if neither of the above are possible, distribution providers will purge the vulnerable package from their distributions along with any packages that transitively depend on it (this is almost never necessary except as a short-term measure, and even then is extremely rare)
The point being, the ecosystem is NOT strictly relying on the cooperation of package maintainers to ensure security. It's certainly helpful and makes everything go much smoother for everyone if they do cooperate, but the vulnerability can still be identified and remedied even if they don't cooperate.
As for the original link, I think the correct takeaway from that is: If you have a vested or commercial interest in ensuring that the open source packages you use are secure from day zero, then you should really consider ways to support the open source projects you depend on, either through monetary contributions or through reviews and code contributions.
And if there's something you don't like about that arrangement, then please consider paying for licenses on closed-source software which will provide you with the very reassuring "security by sticking your head in the sand", because absolutely no one outside the corporation has any opportunity to audit the security of the software that you're using.
You're making a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent where you're assuming that just because the backdoor was caught under these particular conditions, these are the only conditions under which it would've been caught.
Suppose the bad actor had not been sloppy; it would still be entirely possible that the backdoor gets identified and fixed during a security audit performed by an enterprise grade Linux distribution.
In this case it was caught especially early because the bad actor did not cover their tracks very well, but now that that has occurred, it cannot necessarily be proven one way or the other whether the backdoor would have been caught by other means.
(On a more serious note, if this is happening to you then you're not following the instructions to clean the device and replace the filter once a month.)