> But you don't get splashy outrage, and thus less success at "raising awareness" with people that didn't care before, which is what your comment seemed to argu

> But you don't get splashy outrage, and thus less success at "raising awareness" with people that didn't care before, which is what your comment seemed to argue for. the reason for doing it, is basic quality science. it's proper blinding. the result is raising awareness, which if it leads to more scrutiny and a better and more secure linux kernel, seems to be a good thing... in the long run. i mean, i get it. a lot of this security stuff feels a lot like gotcha qa, with people looking to make names for themselves at the expense of others. and yeah, in science, making a name for yourself is the primary currency... but honestly, they ran their experiment and it worked, uncovered an actual, not theoretical, vulnerability in an irrefutable way, in a massive chunk of computing infrastructure that powers massive chunks of society. papers like this one can have a lot of potential in terms of raising funds. this is the sort of thing that can be taken to governments, private foundations and public corporations to ask for quite a lot of money to help with the situation.