That's a rather unfortunate interpretation to take, from the way I look at things. Although one could disagree about the nature of his disclosure, which would

That's a rather unfortunate interpretation to take, from the way I look at things. Although one could disagree about the nature of his disclosure, which would be a fair argument, to bucket that under "acting to the detriment of your employer" as the transgression seems shortsighted. This would place nearly all whistleblowers under this same category, and I'd certainly hope if you have some evidence of malfeasance (or negligence, as it could relate to a vulnerability), you would not hesitate to go public with it after appropriate due diligence exploring more controlled avenues of release.