I agree that none of these reports could be considered "critical." I also agree that the tone is a bit unprofessional. I'd add that I generally find these publi

I agree that none of these reports could be considered "critical." I also agree that the tone is a bit unprofessional. I'd add that I generally find these publicity pushes using fairly bland findings to be distasteful. All that being said, I'd like to clarify a bit based on my read of #1. > #1 "In order to bypass PayPal’s 2FA, our researcher used the PayPal mobile app and a MITM proxy, like Charles proxy." > So you need to be MITM'd and have a malicious cert installed? Yeah... not "critical" and out-of-scope for most places. In generally, using a proxy to perform a 2FA bypass wouldn't decrease the risk. In this case, the attacker already has compromised credentials, and they are trying to bypass the secondary control. As they are the one authenticating, the need for MiTM isn't a huge deal. That being said, another point that was made is that the "2FA" they are bypassing isn't actually Paypal's 2FA. Instead, it is a secondary, risk-based validation. A bit of a semantic difference, but important to note that if a user was leveraging 2FA this bypass wouldn't actually get an attack who had compromised credentials access.