I'm sorry, this sounds like a poor rationalization for lack of useful functionality. By this logic, you should crash the program without warning whenever invalid input is detected - it could be an attack since no program should ever provide invalid input to a function. In real life, programs have tons of bugs and diagnostic messages are hugely useful in identifying and then fixing them. Especially since the vast majority of programs are not used in a context where an attack can occur.
A 'paranoid' mode with this behavior may make sense for some people. Most people, especially those in the process of developing the software, would prefer diagnostics when things go wrong.
I disagree. There is a big difference between invalid input to a function (eg trying to convert "abc" to an integer) and a memory corruption bug. In the former case, you can return an error to the caller, and if they were written with enough attention to detail, they can fix the problem and move on, or ask the user for actually valid input, or whatever followup action may be appropriate.
In the case of a memory corruption bug, there is no way to correct the problem and move on. By the time you detect the problem, you're already hosed. You can't even rely on the fact that the program accurately knows what it was in the middle of trying to do. I think crashing is absolutely appropriate here. And if you want to debug it, then attach a debugging to the program or the resulting core dump -- all the same information you would have gotten from printed diagnostics can be found (albeit with more effort). But trying to diagnose a memory corruption bug after the fact like this is the hard way to do it anyway. You really want to catch the corruption as it happens, and the are much better tools for this (valgrind, etc).