Which isn't to say Rust wouldn't have caught many of the other memory safety issues, but 75% is horribly misleading.
Which is... true? but irrelevant. Such applications are not suggested to be ported to Rust. Of course, some people still do that, because they like Rust; but that's their personal choice.
For a language as ugly as Rust, my thought is that people should actually be using Ada, and have a mathematically provable correctness angle; not just a replacement for C/C++ with memory safety.
If memory safety issues are 75% of exploited zero days it sounds to me like they're the biggest issue in the ecosystem by far.
Most exploited code probably exists in the application layer in a high-level, memory safe language. I would wager that but I don’t have time to cite ten papers on HN.
It's a bit like saying you should program in C, because formal verification tool X generates C code hence C is safe.
I think formal verification is the way to go with AI moving forward.