I want to clarify that I think that everyone involved wants to do the "Right Thing". What I'm arguing about is that there are different schools of thought in th

I want to clarify that I think that everyone involved wants to do the "Right Thing". What I'm arguing about is that there are different schools of thought in the vulnerability research community as to what the "Right Thing" is at any given point in time. I am not claiming that a security researcher can just drop 0day on Twitter and not expect some amount of backlash. > You say it "rubs you the wrong way" without pointing out what exactly you think is wrong with it. Let's step through it: >> "Vulnerabilities are normally discussed..." This implies there's a "correct" way of handling vulnerabilities, and anything that doesn't conform to this correct way is the "wrong" way. >> "Sometimes, information can leak and this has the potential to put users at risk." Somewhat of a nothing burger. Information can also potentially help secure users. In my case I immediately shut down the CUPS daemons on all of my boxes. This shortened my exposure window immensely. >> "We encourage everyone to consider the greater good." This reeks of a 'holier than thou' attitude, by implying the disclosure wasn't done with the greater good in mind. I believe evilsocket encountered some headstrong maintainers that had a hard time keeping information about the vulnerabilities secret and assessed the risk of a malicious actor discovering the vulnerability to be too great. The greater good - in the opinion of the security researcher - was better served by ensuring the relevant information was publicly disseminated. >> "If disagreements come up during disclosure, third-party coordinators, such as CERT/CC’s VINCE, can step in to mediate discussion." Disagreements did come up, and Canonical again is subtly claiming they were handled in the "wrong" way as if there is some objective "right" and "wrong" way.