I want "security" software authors to stop doing harm. Just as physicians take up the Hippocratic Oath, I think we need to set higher standards for programs, ap

I want "security" software authors to stop doing harm. Just as physicians take up the Hippocratic Oath, I think we need to set higher standards for programs, applications and processes which avow to improve security, because too often they seem to have the opposite effect. Traditional anti-virus tools are a classic example of this. I do see their website now, but I'm still confused: > We are a team of visioneers, engineers, designers, and security experts backed by top-tier VCs who believe in making security work for everyone. Great. What makes you security experts? In other words, why should we trust you? You say the code is open source and that makes it trustworthy, but source availability is not a panacea. It must really be vigorously stressed, tested and abused by competent hackers (as a consensual contracted service) - again, if we are to call it "security" software. Plainly, this is a beta test for a company that wants to make some money and has generously externalized bugs, issues and other nuances of development unto the open source community, which through some sort of Stockholm Syndrome has actually convinced itself more code - even if it's not good code - is still a good thing.