Hacker News Reader

Comment by isodev | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

It's two lines in an otherwise pretty indepth technical article. Hardly a tantrum.

What he’s basically saying here is “I’d rather let my personal opinion prevail than responsibly disclose and get some vulnerabilities fixed.”

Even if, at their worst, Apple is as petty as he’s “heard” (given the FUD surrounding quite a lot of engineer’s), the proper response is responding with less pettiness, not more. It’s reflective of the author’s character no matter how he expressed the tantrum.

Well this is absolute bullshit. You're discussing private software. It's up to the owner to offer a bug program that's enticing enough to debug their own software if they care.

Reporting a vulnerability should be extremely low effort. Regardless of how I feel about a company I wouldn't want users to get screwed. I tried to disclose to google once and they required an account so instead I moved on with my life. I don't care about random people enough to make a google account.

So the question is whether those bugs are in the framework part provided by Apple, or the application specific code handing the individual messages.

I don't understand, you have a high-level technical understanding of MPC, but you're dismissive of the criticism?

An auth strategy based on a Map<String, bool>, where String is a plain-text beacon on the LAN, seems well-worth criticizing.

I may have gotten turned about when trying to understand a few things, my understanding is you dismiss this because you're not sure if one feature uses it? And because parsers can't have vulnerabilities on arbitrary data?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com