This actually is a security footgun. In Java or C# you can't get security issues by trying to update a reference from multiple threads, because it's always atomic. In Go you can create type confusion because interface pointer updates are not atomic.
This sets the bar ludicrously low for "security footgun". If this is a "security footgun" then what is string evaluation in a dynamic scripting language, a "security foot-nuke"?
Granted, there is no sharp line that can be drawn, but given my personal career I'd say I've encountered it personally at least once is a reasonable bar, if not quite excessively low. (tptacek would have to set the bar somewhere else, given his career.) Concurrency issues causing a security issue because of type confusion on an interface in a Go program is not a "every time I crack open a program, oi, this security vulnerability again" like bad HTML escaping or passing things straight to a shell. I mean, "concurrency issues causing type confusion on an interface" is already not something I've ever personally witnessed, let alone it actually being a security issue rather than a difficult-to-trace panic issue.
And I will reiterate, I already say that any bug can become a security issue in the right context. That doesn't make them all "security footguns".
> This sets the bar ludicrously low for "security footgun". If this is a "security footgun" then what is string evaluation in a dynamic scripting language, a "security foot-nuke"?
Not really. Apart from dangerous serialization formats (e.g. Python's "pickle") it's not at all easy to eval a string in modern scripting languages.
