Not all exploits are due to negligence or at least not crass negligence. Sure, something may have been forgotten (although the present article says nothing abou

Not all exploits are due to negligence or at least not crass negligence. Sure, something may have been forgotten (although the present article says nothing about this), systems are complex and as the "defender" you only have to make one mistake. But your "it's on me" is very much victim blaming unless you can show a pattern of intentional ignorance or malfeasance within a network. I can get in your house even if you close the window. It's a window and can be opened. Are you still to blame? I can look for money even if you hide them, I'll search around. Are you still to blame? You could have taken the precaution of not having money in the house or at least not living on the ground floor if you do. Many attacks are 0day, many others are supply chain attacks, many exploit the weakest of links, the human. There's a limit to how much you can protect yourself from one attack in an instant before you cause yourself harm slowly but continuously. No matter how many locks you put you're not guaranteeing anything. It's a calculated risk and sometimes the calculation doesn't pay off.