Where do you see a "debunking" there? I sure don't. Just a downplaying of the risks of the previous type of attack. This is a new, MUCH worse attack from a dif

Where do you see a "debunking" there? I sure don't. Just a downplaying of the risks of the previous type of attack. This is a new, MUCH worse attack from a different researcher -- one with significant existing credibility, I might add.