> It encourages the use of dependencies from random (i.e. published with cargo) sources without much quality control. It is really a supply chain disaster to happen.

Oh I 100% agree with this, but that's not what was being talked about. That being said, I don't think the distribution model is perfect either: it just has a different set of tradeoffs. Not all software has the same risk profile, not all software is a security boundary between a system and the internet. I 100% agree that the sheer number of crates that the average Rust program pulls in is... not good, but it's also not the only language/platform that does this (npm, pypi, pick-your-favorite-text-editor, etc.), so soloing out Rust in that context doesn't make sense either, it only makes sense when comparing it to the C/C++ "ecosystem".

I'm also somewhat surprised that the conclusion people come to here is that dynamic linking is a solution to the problem at hand or even a strong source of mitigation: it's really, really not. The ability to, at almost any time, swap out what version of a dependency something is running is what allowed this exploit to happen in the first place. The fact that there was dynamic linking at all dramatically increased the blast radius of what was effected by this, not decreased it. It only provides a benefit once discovered, and that benefit is mostly in terms of less packages need to be rebuilt and updated by distro maintainers and users. Ultimately, supply-chain security is an incredibly tough problem that is far more nuanced than valueless "dynamic linking is better than static linking" statements can even come close to communicating.

> A problem like this would propagate much faster. Here the threat actor had to work hard to get his library updated in distributions and at each step there was a chance that this is detected.

It wouldn't though, because programs would have had to have been rebuilt with the backdoored versions. The book keeping would be harder, but the blast radius would have probably been smaller with static linking except in the case where the package is meticulously maintained by someone who bumps their dependencies constantly or if the exploit goes unnoticed for a long period of time. That's trouble no matter what.

> Now think about a Rust package automatically pulling in transitively 100s of crates.

Yup, but it only happens at build time. The blast radius has different time-domain properties than with shared libraries. See above. 100s of crates is ridiculous, and IMO the community could (and should) do a lot more to establish which crates are maintained appropriately and are actually being monitored.

> Sure, a distribution can later figure out what was affected and push upgrades to all the packages.

This is trivial to do with build system automation and a small modicum of effort. It's also what already happens, no?

> But fundamentally, we should minimize dependencies and we should have quality control at each level

Agreed, the Rust ecosystem has it's own tooling for quality control. Just because it's not maintained by the distro maintainers doesn't mean it's not there. There is a lot of room for improvement though.

> (and ideally we should not run code at build time). Cargo goes into the full opposite direction. Rust got this wrong.

Hard, hard, hard disagree. Nearly every language requires executing arbitrary code at compile time, yes, even a good chunk of C/C++. A strong and consistent build system is a positive in this regard: it would be much harder to obfuscate an attack like this in a Rust build.rs because there's not multiple stages of abstraction with an arbitrary number of ways to do it. As it stands, part of the reason the xz exploit was even possible was because of the disaster that is autotools. I would argue the Rust build story is significantly better than the average C/C++ build story. Look at all the comments here describing the "autotools gunk" that is used to obfuscate what is actually going on. Sure, you could do something similar for Rust, but it would look weird, not "huh, I don't understand this, but that's autotools for ya, eh?"

To be clear, I agree with you that the state of Rust and it's packaging is not ideal, but I don't think it necessarily made wrong decisions, it's just immature as a platform, which is something that can and will be addressed.