Comment by b112
8 hours ago
No.
If you want to 'adopt' a new reality, you talk to all parties, and everyone moves up the release. That's how agreements and trust work. If you don't do so? No one will trust you ever again.
And?
You won't be at the table next time.
[flagged]
It seems like you don't agree with coordinated releases as a standard. That's fine, but irrelevant here. If you agree to coordinate, so that you can get inside info on security updates and be prepared, and then break that agreement, you're not trustworthy. No hand wavy reasons will change this fact.
I don't know many who want to deal with untrustworthy people.
what exactly is the point of maintaining coordinated disclosure even if one believes in it wholeheartedly in the case where the thing in question is under active exploitation already and there is no longer any hope of quietly solving the issue before active exploitation begins?
are we to somehow count the hypothetical future exploitees that may yet be helped by avoiding disclosure 1–1 against the actual literal current exploitees harmed by further postponing the fixes landing?
1 reply →