This isn’t really fair. Most buildings, public works, utilities and industrial processes are extremely vulnerable to the most basic of attacks, they just don’t get carried out as often in physical space because it’s logistically more difficult to execute.
Your claim is fundamentally "It's logistically easier to attack software, so such attacks will happen more often".
This is absolutely true, but it's also proportionally easier to defend software. It's insanely easy to test whether your software is vulnerable to SQL injection, it's not particularly easy to test whether your building can be destroyed with explosives.
Combine that with the fact that just about every piece of consumer software on the planet has a laundry list of bugs that don't require malicious intent to reproduce, and I find it very hard to accept that reasoning for software developers absconding responsibility.
Empirical/dynamic testing for vulnerabilities is not rigorous or complete in any any way, and is only viable for a relatively small subset of issues.
I'm only suggesting that holding programmers liable for security vulnerabilities isn't really precedented across any other engineering discipline. That's not to say there isn't tons of shitty software being shipped with reckless disregard for quality, and some reckoning there might be useful.
