> It's because you (like me) aren't quite as paranoid as security people are.

I work heavily with security-conscious clients where vulnerabilities would be catastrophic. And we are talking high profile clients that are juicy target for attacks.

My experience is still that the vast majority of vulnerabilities are accidental rather than due to malice.

And when I say “vast”, I mean the so heavily slanted in favour of “unintended” that it’s not even comparable.

> It's really a matter of context. Security people tend to only be involved when things are already nefarious

I’m guessing you’ve not worked with many “security people”?

You’d be surprised how much of their day-to-day is mundane.

I'm a security people. I can say with confidence that a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of these security issues are deliberate. Almost all of them are just dumb mistakes because making good software is really hard and really, really expensive and there is no market incentive to make good software. You don't need to get hired at the safe factory to build an elaborate back door into the production line if safes are actually just cardboard boxes, you know?

It's possible the backdoor is deliberate, I have no idea in this particular case, but the more likely situation, absent more information, is that someone who is earning a middling wage just added the "feature" and didn't think about the security implications because no one cares about computer security.