> However, a developer need to avoid that footgun once, and when the developer verifies the scenario with testing, this part of the code can be considered "seal

> However, a developer need to avoid that footgun once, and when the developer verifies the scenario with testing, this part of the code can be considered "sealed", never to be touched again unless a bug is found, or a serious need arises to enter that part of the code. This just does not hold up at all, in practice. It is not at all uncommon for footguns in software go undetected in testing, and lie in wait, like so many landmines, for someone to set them off - or for some blackhat to find them. > Most security problems arise from memory management problems from my experience. That does nothing to somehow compensate for, or otherwise render harmless, those that are not. More generally, by describing various ways you can seek to avoid footguns, you are simply providing evidence that they are a problem, not a feature.