[alt187]

> But I can think of one possible reason: SQLite has been known to have memory safety vulnerabilities, whereas this codebase is written in Rust with no unsafe code.

I've lost every single shred of confidence I had in the comment's more optimistic claims the moment I read this.

If you read through SQLite's CVE history, you'll notice most of those are spurious at best.

Some more context here: https://sqlite.org/cves.html

[ii41]

I am using sqlite in my project. It definitely solves problems, but I keep seeing overly arrogant and sometimes even irresponsible statements from their website, and can't really appreciate much of their attitude towards software engineering. The below quote from this CVE page is one more example of such statements.

> All historical vulnerabilities reported against SQLite require at least one of these preconditions:

> 1. ...

> 2. The attacker can submit a maliciously crafted database file to the application that the application will then open and query.

> Few real-world applications meet either of these preconditions, and hence few real-world applications are vulnerable, even if they use older and unpatched versions of SQLite.

This 2. precondition is literally one of the idiomatic usage of sqlite that they've suggested on their site: https://sqlite.org/appfileformat.html