3 ms·

This will destroy the trust people may have in any author's claim as well...

• Iolaum 5y ago
  Depends on the how they respond and the audience. Personally, if they respond with alacrity and transparency then I get to trust them more. For the average consumer ...
• smoldesu 5y ago
  This isn't an unheard-of practice in the software world. BSD has often touted itself as the most secure *NIX-like system on the market today. When someone files a CVE, the developers use it as an excuse to powwow, crush the bug or vuln, and then continue claiming to be best-in-breed. And yes, that's not necessarily the de-facto behavior of a lot of developers, unfortunately. Projects like Flatpak have hundreds of open issues and vulns, with only a handful of developers actually dedicated to working on it. These people often prioritize features over fixes, and they reap what they sow for it.
  • throwawaysysd 5y ago
    This is a really bizarre comment to make, considering BSD has no equivalent to flatpak. Flatpak might only have a handful of developers, on BSD you get nobody trying to fix application-level sandboxing at all. Unless I missed something and there's a new BSD project being worked on here, but I haven't heard anything.
    • smoldesu 5y ago
      They're both security-oriented, open-source projects with limited numbers of contributors. I'm comparing the way they handle their priorities, and moreover just trying to tie it back to how claiming to be perfectly secure is a pretty regular occurrence. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, but it doesn't have to be for the sake of this example.