I'm not asking for more. I'm saying I think it is scummy to do the bare minimum when you're advertising yourself as a critical piece of security software and encouraging the use of the software in real security-critical applications.
They are advertising on their website, extremely prominently, that they are fit for your all of identity management needs.
Are they allowed to put a single paragraph in their license file that runs counter to all of their other marketing, advertising, and communication efforts? For sure!
Is it shitty to do that? I think so. Just be upfront, it's not hard. If your software isn't fit for security-critical applications, don't pretend it is.
I suppose it's best if you never use any open source software ever again because they all do that. Like I said, it's standard boilerplate and it's absurd to think you get to wish for more from an open source project that you aren't contributing to.
Of course this boilerplate is necessary else you get people like yourself demanding unreasonable things.
I'm not demanding anything, please stop reading my comments in the most uncharitable way you possibly can.
I'm not sure what has you in super-defense mode, but just as they are allowed to misrepresent themselves on their website, I'm allowed to think that it's shitty to do so. However, as I've said already (a few times, actually), they are more than free to continue doing so (and I'm more than free to keep saying it's shitty).
The point is they're not misrepresenting anything, you just don't seem to understand open source. Literally all of them have the same disclaimer, and obviously they're not going to make any guarantees to randos who haven't even paid them. If this is a problem for you, stop using open source. For a start, say byebye to linux.
As for why I'm "on the defensive", bashing open source projects is bad form. You're absolutely welcome to request a refund, though.
