This is the mistake of the people who depend on something out of their control, not the person who made some code public, with the promise that there is no warranty, the software is "as-is" and more, which is fairly common in FOSS licenses.

The right answer is for people to start understanding the license of the things they use and depend on, and if "no warranties what so ever" isn't good enough for them, it's up to them to find a project using a license they do agree with.

Security breaches and downtime are the responsibility of people using the SW - not of the developers.

I rely on a lot of open source libraries for my job. It's 100% my responsibility to pick libraries that I think are well maintained, and find alternatives when there are important bugs that aren't being fixed (that I myself cannot fix).

I really could care less about some corporation's security. If some company being cheap enough to use my software without compensation or testing has it open their systems to people without proper corporate authorization, I see that as a plus. I release software as is, and if they want to try to get blood from a stone and sue me any how, so be it.

So what?

There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.

Spreading yourself thin because of some imagined responsibility you're not compensated for causes even more harm. The whole point of FLOSS is to provide everyone enough freedom to let them care about the stuff they use themselves.