Personally I don't think the analogy holds up; the situations are too different. Computer security contends with securing systems against people who are assumed to be hostile. AI alignment research seeks to prevent systems from becoming hostile in the first place, when they might have some indirect incentives to become hostile but also some very strong direct incentives to be friendly.

There's also a big assumption that given enough computational power, you can just solve "artificial life forms" or "postbiological molecular manufacturing" in a short time frame. I am skeptical. And if that doesn't happen, then even horribly misaligned AI would have a hard time doing much harm or preventing people from shutting it off. Which means AI security would likely have a long adolescence just like computer security has, with attacks slowly becoming more dangerous, but defenders having the time needed to learn from them and ramp up suitable defenses.

Or even if an AI does revolutionize biotechnology or nanotechnology overnight, what are the odds that the first one to do this is misaligned enough to take that particular opportunity to betray its creators, as opposed to giving them control over the high-level planning and sticking to the science, like it was presumably designed to do? Because if it does give its creators control, then, well… it's still easy to imagine something going horribly wrong, but it would probably be someone's fault, not an AI alignment issue.