Well... supply chain attacks are trivial to anticipate. A lot of modern programming (I'm thinking JavaScript especially when I say this) involves what seems to be 100s of dependencies. If there is a 1% chance of a random repo having a backdoor, the project will be compromised. That is clear and obvious.
The problem is that the people who act on this and minimise dependencies are at a significant economic disadvantage to those who don't. A project with high risk tolerance has to write a fraction of the code and solve a fraction of the problems as someone who carefully writes secure software.
The trade off isn't just "convenience", we're talking massive differentials in productivity that favour insecure models. It is much cheaper to accept that data will leak sooner or later, to the point where we can assume that if something is economically developed that is evidence it can't possibly be secure. That isn't an argument for more security though; if possible it is better to just design systems where leaks don't matter (eg, here in HN it isn't clear why I'd care about a leak - everything is already public except for the IP address in the server log).
The problem is that the people who act on this and minimise dependencies are at a significant economic disadvantage to those who don't. A project with high risk tolerance has to write a fraction of the code and solve a fraction of the problems as someone who carefully writes secure software.
The trade off isn't just "convenience", we're talking massive differentials in productivity that favour insecure models. It is much cheaper to accept that data will leak sooner or later, to the point where we can assume that if something is economically developed that is evidence it can't possibly be secure. That isn't an argument for more security though; if possible it is better to just design systems where leaks don't matter (eg, here in HN it isn't clear why I'd care about a leak - everything is already public except for the IP address in the server log).