>What other conclusion could you come to apart from a CDN breach? "Ah fuck, hundreds of users are suddenly calling/emailing/tweeting at us saying they can't lo

>What other conclusion could you come to apart from a CDN breach? "Ah fuck, hundreds of users are suddenly calling/emailing/tweeting at us saying they can't load the site, and I see a bunch of errors in the console while testing from a fresh browser. Looks like it's only affecting browsers that don't currently have this CDN JS file in cache. The CDN must have broke something, but things seem to work okay when including the script with a standard script tag. I'll just remove this SRI attribute thing for now to stop the bleeding." Or, if they have a bit more knowledge/do a bit more research: "Looks they might have pushed a change that minifies the JS file slightly differently or something, or maybe the script got upgraded to patch some issue? And I guess the change probably broke the SRI thing? I don't know if the file is going to change again in the near future so I'll just remove this annoying thing for now until they provide some recommendations." (Or: "I'll just hash the current version of the file and change it to that, and prepare to change it again ASAP if the errors re-appear.") Someone more experienced/knowledgeable would obviously not operate that way, but given how popular cdnjs is, seems fairly likely at least a few administrators would do something like that. Especially if they don't fully understand what the intitialism really means or what a hash is or how integrity is defined in this context and what the implications might be. Their instinct might just be to see something breaking the site for lots of users and to "fix the problem" as quickly and easily as possible.