Hacker News Reader

generic92034

The counter move is announcing some "security fixes" (of course without any further detail) in each and every update. Now you do not know if you are increasing security by applying the update or if you are decreasing it...

View on HN

"Security fixes" just means the developer wanted to list what actually changed (which would be "added more telemetry, fixed analytics client ID persistence, made sidebar blue match logo" or something) but the PM insists on using the same generic message each time. Safe to ignore those updates!

I don't get out of bed for anything without a CVE so I can confirm I actually have a threat from the vulnerability, often times they're things where you'd need to use an obscure feature or local privilege escalations on single user systems, etc.

If they never publish any details of security issues (and certainly no CVE score), can you safely assume that you would never receive a genuinely important security fix? How would it feel later on, when your system was compromised and support is pointing to the update with the security fixes?

Yes, maybe that is some weird kind of fear of missing out (on security), but I have a hard time ignoring security fixes, even without details.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com