3 ms·

If I'm not mistaken, they called this a "flaw", not a "vulnerability", which definitely wouldn't have been correct. I personally would have preferred "trade-off

If I'm not mistaken, they called this a "flaw", not a "vulnerability", which definitely wouldn't have been correct. I personally would have preferred "trade-off" but I'm honestly not sure about the word "flaw". My general point is, even if they made some technical errors as well, their consideration, I believe, was more about the consequences of their interpretation.

idlewords 9y ago
They called it a "backdoor", and reported it as a game-over vulnerability. Everything since then has been trying to walk the claim back.
- egeozcan 9y ago
  > They called it a "backdoor", and reported it as a game-over vulnerability. I didn't remember that and it seems to have been removed from the article (with a note on the end which I have missed). Well, that's just sensationalism and must have been picked up way earlier in a sane review process. I stand corrected.
  - Trundle 9y ago
    "The original article – now amended and associated with the conclusions of this review – led to follow-up coverage, some of which sustained the wrong impression given at the outset. The most serious inaccuracy was a claim that WhatsApp had a “backdoor”, an intentional, secret way for third parties to read supposedly private messages. This claim was withdrawn within eight hours of initial publication online, but withdrawn incompletely. The story retained material predicated on the existence of a backdoor, including strongly expressed concerns about threats to freedom, betrayal of trust and benefits for governments which surveil. In effect, having dialled back the cause for alarm, the Guardian failed to dial back expressions of alarm." From this linked article.
jolux 9y ago
You can't separate the technical facts from the interpretation though, because they only brought it up to interpret it incorrectly.

3 ms·

If I'm not mistaken, they called this a "flaw", not a "vulnerability", which definitely wouldn't have been correct. I personally would have preferred "trade-off

by egeozcan 9y ago

idlewords 9y ago
They called it a "backdoor", and reported it as a game-over vulnerability. Everything since then has been trying to walk the claim back.
- egeozcan 9y ago
  > They called it a "backdoor", and reported it as a game-over vulnerability. I didn't remember that and it seems to have been removed from the article (with a note on the end which I have missed). Well, that's just sensationalism and must have been picked up way earlier in a sane review process. I stand corrected.
  - Trundle 9y ago
    "The original article – now amended and associated with the conclusions of this review – led to follow-up coverage, some of which sustained the wrong impression given at the outset. The most serious inaccuracy was a claim that WhatsApp had a “backdoor”, an intentional, secret way for third parties to read supposedly private messages. This claim was withdrawn within eight hours of initial publication online, but withdrawn incompletely. The story retained material predicated on the existence of a backdoor, including strongly expressed concerns about threats to freedom, betrayal of trust and benefits for governments which surveil. In effect, having dialled back the cause for alarm, the Guardian failed to dial back expressions of alarm." From this linked article.
jolux 9y ago
You can't separate the technical facts from the interpretation though, because they only brought it up to interpret it incorrectly.