You've accused the researchers twice now of exaggerating the importance of the vulnerabilities they found. This comment is almost entirely unresponsive to the c

You've accused the researchers twice now of exaggerating the importance of the vulnerabilities they found. This comment is almost entirely unresponsive to the comment you're replying to, which states: > You can, according to the paper, send a classic Threema protocol user a message that, if repeated or forwarded, allows someone else to log in as them. That's a distinctively weird and bad problem for a protocol to have. Can you be precise about what specific claims they made and how the claims were deceptive?