> Many exploits work because an attacker tweaks the circumstances to some unlikely situation.
True, but I think you're ignoring his/her point which is: Many languages, if the problem is UB, won't seek to fix the underlying problem. Their answer is: "Don't do that." Whereas Rust doesn't shirk it's responsibility in those situations, to fix the what is, here, even a theoretical issue.
By "many languages ... do" I assume you mean the people involved. Once you see more Rust code, you will see more such issues, more unmaintained libraries with such issues, and more programmers that do not care all that much, because they are not enthusiastic members of the Rust community caring a lot about memory safety, but people doing some job.
