5 ms·
I'm going to pick on your post a little: Why would you assume a security researcher who put in that much effort and kept the pastebin mostly anonymous didn't p
by ctvo 9y ago
I'm going to pick on your post a little:
Why would you assume a security researcher who put in that much effort and kept the pastebin mostly anonymous didn't put in the effort to contact Panera Bread?
Is there a reason you automatically assume that the security researcher is irresponsible, but companies, who almost daily, have data breaches, are responsible in these scenarios?
"Hey, maybe you should contact the company?!" Thank you captain fucking obvious.
- pvaldes 9y ago> Why would you assume...? Because there is not data that specifies the opposite in the link (and extra info was lacking when I wrote it), thus is a reasonable and logical first thing to check. > Is there a reason you automatically assume that the security researcher is irresponsible...? Please, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't called irresponsible anybody and I didn't automatically assume anything. To be honest, I couldn't care less about who, if one, has the responsibility here. I'm trying to learn something. Not more, not less. Captain fucking obvious is a nice title. We'll have a safer world when people start paying notice to a lot of fucking obvious and boring things. This reminds me a lot to the outrageous lexNET case (that was much, much, worse than internet knowing who has a sweet tooth for buns).