In my experience it's the exact opposite. I've been hearing a lot of explanations for the bash debacle in the last couple of days and they all amaze me to a certain degree. Let me share a couple of them with you.
1. Total breakdown - "No software is ever safe, so what the hell do you want from me." Yeah, well ... don't write software then.
2. It's not my fault - "Bash is written in C. C is unsafe." Quite a lot of people write safe, well tested, maybe even formally verified C code. So, yeah ... don't hack in C maybe.
3. Linux is still fine - "Bash is just a tiny part of Linux. The rest is still good to go." Turns out the bash codebase looks a lot like the rest of the GNU/Linux universe. Old, untested C code that's hard to read and even harder to understand. That's why nobody dares to touch it in the first place.
4. It's FOSS - "You can't expect anything to work. Cause, you know, it's free." If that were true, using FOSS would be a terrible idea.
5. You're using it wrong. ... just wow.
Can't we just all agree that this kind of thing is an endemic problem in most of the code bases we use (including my beloved FreeBSD) and we have to figure it out over the next couple of years. There are loads of tools that should have never been implemented in C/C++ in the first place (SSH, Make, APT, etc.). I'd say the best idea is to port a lot of these code bases to languages like Go or Rust maybe, but if that's not feasible for some reason, at least write some unit tests and do static code analysis. And, this is probably the most important point, if you don't want to do any of this, please don't make lame excuses when it all falls apart eventually.