> However it does nothing, and probably cannot, address the security i.e. the impact on my own safety or that of my assets.
Sure it can. It actively prevents certain type of errors (buffer overflows, integer overflows), which are prime security exploits. Less exploits == more security.
Risk analysis is typically done including both the probability of a problem and the impact of the problem. Not including the former in an analysis will result in spending vastly disproportionate amounts of effort on exceedingly rare problems, e.g. the consequences of a 1000ft tsunami hitting New York would be huge, but we don't build massive sea walls because it is also ridiculously unlikely. This applies perfectly well to digital security too: reducing the probability of an exploit is just as important as limiting impact if it does happen, which is why (for instance) Mozilla is doing both.
I don't think I want to get into what is or is not security, but what I will say is that rust's security does not interfere with safety net features, like sandboxing.
I've found that sandboxing rust is quite easy, as easy as C or C++. I find it much easier than Java/ Python, which have runtimes that can often make things difficult (you certainly would not want to use seccomp in either).
Take a look at DropBox's Brotli - it's a great example of this. It makes use of seccomp, but seccomp is not available on all platforms, so it also relies on rust's safety.
Sure it can. It actively prevents certain type of errors (buffer overflows, integer overflows), which are prime security exploits. Less exploits == more security.