3 ms·

I can see this going badly. I understand they probably have altruistic motives but I can see some website owner claiming their vulnerable site was 'safe' throug

by jefe78 14y ago

I can see this going badly. I understand they probably have altruistic motives but I can see some website owner claiming their vulnerable site was 'safe' through obscurity but was attacked due to this public shaming. Should be interesting. Can anyone correct me/inform us as to whether the site owner will have a leg to stand on in court?

jnorthrop 14y ago
Most laws and regulations require a site to provide "reasonable" and "adequate" protection. While those are loaded legal terms it is generally interpreted in such a way that a site should be proactive enough to be updated against known and patched vulnerabilities. It looks like TIM is reporting on those -- I didn't see any zero-day stuff -- so, to answer your question, I think TIM has a very defensible position if faced with a suit.