> It's secure or its not. Then there is no concept of "improves" security. Either it is now secure or it is not. Do they have proof that there are now no side

> It's secure or its not. Then there is no concept of "improves" security. Either it is now secure or it is not. Do they have proof that there are now no side channel attacks that can be made on their software? EDIT: sigh This comment is not arguing that they need a proof for their change. It is arguing that you can improve security without making something completely secure, which undermines the idea that code is 'either secure or it is not'.