Rust was not the cause of the bug. It was a C bug and was exposed during the process of deleting the code in question (adding the new code to replace it actually exposed the old bug).
It has given us a very keen awareness of just how bad such bugs can be, and hence "we had a bug once" might be considered the soft way of saying "no more effing C". Of course we'll still have C and C++ as we're heavily invested, but if there are safer alternatives that we can use those will definitely be considered first.
What rarely gets discussed in this case was that old, working code was modified in a critical way in order to accommodate new code when that didn't need to be done at all. It was actually a failure in the software development process.
It has given us a very keen awareness of just how bad such bugs can be, and hence "we had a bug once" might be considered the soft way of saying "no more effing C". Of course we'll still have C and C++ as we're heavily invested, but if there are safer alternatives that we can use those will definitely be considered first.