3 ms·

It would be best (per the HN guidelines) to title this submission with the original article title, "Disclosure timeline for vulnerabilities under active attack.

It would be best (per the HN guidelines) to title this submission with the original article title, "Disclosure timeline for vulnerabilities under active attack." That's a more neutral spin than the headline "Google: 7 days advance notice is enough for actively exploited vulnerability" originally submitted here.

tnorthcutt 13y ago
I posted this yesterday with the original article title, but linked to the .com version of the post, not the .com.br version: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5789736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5789736
- lsaferite 13y ago
  They really should merge duplicate submissions under the first submission in these cases.
comex 13y ago
I wouldn't call the current title a "spin"; it's just a short summary of what Google explicitly said in the post that's more informative than the post title. (Compare this key quote: "Based on our experience, however, we believe that more urgent action -- within 7 days -- is appropriate for critical vulnerabilities under active exploitation.")
gojomo 13y ago
The original article title is very weak, though – corporate dullspeak that obscures the real news, the new 7-day standard replacing an earlier 60-day standard. It is possible to improve many headlines, and despite the slightest twinge of editorializing added by the "...is enough..." wording, the submitted headline was both accurate and informative.
whateverfor 13y ago
It's more neutral because it takes out a bunch of useful information and leaves practically nothing left, like a news story that's unbiased because it doesn't bother actually saying any facts. The original title doesn't even explain that Google is changing their policy. I understand wanting to remove editorializing, but there's a difference between that and adding some detail from the article itself to a rather contentless title.

tnorthcutt 13y ago

I posted this yesterday with the original article title, but linked to the .com version of the post, not the .com.br version: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5789736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5789736

lsaferite 13y ago
They really should merge duplicate submissions under the first submission in these cases.

comex 13y ago

I wouldn't call the current title a "spin"; it's just a short summary of what Google explicitly said in the post that's more informative than the post title. (Compare this key quote: "Based on our experience, however, we believe that more urgent action -- within 7 days -- is appropriate for critical vulnerabilities under active exploitation.")

gojomo 13y ago

The original article title is very weak, though – corporate dullspeak that obscures the real news, the new 7-day standard replacing an earlier 60-day standard. It is possible to improve many headlines, and despite the slightest twinge of editorializing added by the "...is enough..." wording, the submitted headline was both accurate and informative.

whateverfor 13y ago

It's more neutral because it takes out a bunch of useful information and leaves practically nothing left, like a news story that's unbiased because it doesn't bother actually saying any facts. The original title doesn't even explain that Google is changing their policy. I understand wanting to remove editorializing, but there's a difference between that and adding some detail from the article itself to a rather contentless title.