&gt; Yes, a lot of bugs are &quot;unsafe&quot; memory access issues, but a lot of bugs are not.<p>A huge number are. For example: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cvedetails.com&#x2F;vulnerability-list&#x2F;vendor_id-72&#x2F;product_id-767&#x2F;GNU-Glibc.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cvedetails.com&#x2F;vulnerability-list&#x2F;vendor_id-72&#x2F;p...</a><p>&gt; That alone, will yield far greater results than some lofty goal of completely re-writing 100&#x27;s of thousands of lines of code which have been working, tested, and matured for almost 3 decades.<p>Windows, the popular Web browser engines, and antivirus software are all examples of systems software that are very well funded. But they still regularly fall to memory safety problems. The converse is also interesting to look at: djbdns and qmail are examples of poorly funded software, but they have had very few memory safety problems.<p>I agree with the general principle that funding helps security overall, though.