OpenBSD wouldn't say anything like that. They're well aware of the 40+ year old codebase's limitations, but accept it because they're not so stupid as to "rewrite it in <other language>" which will bring a million bugs.

They've innovated again and again in the security space and aggressively bring in new security features like pf, OpenSSH, W^X enforcement, pledge(), arc4random(), ASLR, so many other things.

Unlike, say, NPM, which can't even replicate existing packaging systems like yum or apt, and has been plagued with security flaws despite being built entirely out of a memory-safe language. Quite an achievement.

It's difficult to say if a kernel written in rust would not have similar vulnerabilites, because it would be impossible to build a kernel without significant amounts of `unsafe`.

Tell us you know nothing about kernel programming and trust stacks while you are at it.

The OpenBSD project was started in 1995, with ancestry going back further than that. Should they have first invented Rust? Or at what point do you suppose the decades-old codebase should have been completely rewritten?