sudo-rs
Fewer than 5 people recommend it so far, so there's no written verdict. Here is what commenters said.
3recommend
10warn against
Nov 11, 2025first mention
Sep 15, 2026latest mention
Why people recommend it
“so it did require sudo-rs to exist”
“sudo-rs and a bunch of others are maintained by”
Caveats and dissent
“I was bummed when I came across this”
“Security issues discovered in sudo-rs”
Show 2 more
“they were forced into Ubuntu despite bugs and memory unsafety in the Rust implementations”
“Tried to reinvent the wheel with sudo-rs”
Often compared with
Threads where it came up
- Ubuntu 26.10 completes transition to Rust-based coreutils 3 mentions
- What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust 2 mentions
- Zero-day CSS: CVE-2026-2441 exists in the wild 2 mentions
- Memory Safety 2 mentions
- Ported freetype, fontconfig, harfbuzz, and graphite to Fil-C 2 mentions
- Security issues discovered in sudo-rs 2 mentions
Data: sudo-rs.json. Quotes are verbatim; the verdict and theme labels are written by a model from these comments, and every clause links to its sources.
All comments 17
“They seem pretty upfront that it isn't their goal.”
“I was bummed when I came across this”
“Security issues discovered in sudo-rs”
“they were forced into Ubuntu despite bugs and memory unsafety in the Rust implementations”
“so it did require sudo-rs to exist”
“sudo-rs and a bunch of others are maintained by”
“Tried to reinvent the wheel with sudo-rs”
> but its code has lots of unsafe. And every instance of unsafe that I could find (except one, in test-only code) was a call to libc with a clarifying comment on why this particular use was safe. That is, all (or at least, all of it that I could find) was wrapping an unsafe API with documented (and usually straightforward and local) invariants that maintain safety, such that the calling code is safe. I'd say that the
“it proclaimed loudly that it is memory safe, but its code has lots of unsafe”
Reading comprehension and critical thinking again missing from your post. The article would only “invalidate” what I wrote if the sudo-rs vulnerability was a result of memory safety. That isn’t what these vulnerabilities are. By the way, the data on this is so clear and readily available about the real world reduction in memory safety issues Rust has in the real world I really don’t understand how you’re doubling dow
“This is not guaranteed to be memory safe.”
“For example, the recent sudo-rs rewrite.”
> Zig is definitely not as safe as either Rust or Fil-C, since Zig doesn't have a great story for use after free. Have you considered making... Fil-Zig? Would it be easier to do because Zig is already fairly far ahead of C in terms of safety? > Rust is less safe than Fil-C in practice, because Rust code uses `unsafe` a lot (>100 uses of `unsafe` in uutils and sudo-rs, for example), and Rust code ends up depending on
Even after 40 years of battle-hardening, it has had buffer overflow and double free vulnerabilities discovered recently, which Rust protects against. sudoedit one was pretty bad. https://www.sudo.ws/security/advisories/
“There is a link to github commit in the "Notes" section”
“Two security issues were discovered in sudo-rs”
“effectively negating the intended behaviour of the targetpw or rootpw options.”