You wish the CEO of a company would harass you?

You wish a CEO would give general denials and the same non-answers you see in a comment thread while pretending to engage with you in good faith?

Fuck off, the CEO gave no new info or perspectives and just showed himself to be the asshole that recent emerging evidence had been showing he was.

This comment really crystallizes your nerd subtype. I may be a [6] but you from arguing with you, ya sound cute 💜

Enjoy your selfhosting journey!

I am annoying, but something being low-risk and not effecting most customers doesn’t make it a “false positive”.

“A liar who lies repeatedly won’t be believed” is definitely equivalent to “A company conservatively warned that one of their products was dangerous in some specific situations.”

Hanging out with you sounds really fun.

lol and you said you weren’t big mad.

It’s not a matter of “less or more information[…]”

Escalating every such bug […] would quickly drown out notices that people actually care about.

If your argument is that a specific class of security bugs aren’t worth CVEs, then make that argument. Instead, you’re saying the CVE isn’t valid and making an argument about the risk assessment and development lifecycle (as if those aren’t part of a CVE) and not the class of security bug.

I have, this entire time, said it’s a valid CVE that you don’t care about and that you shouldn’t be working as a cybersecurity professional. You have conceded the first point and continued to demonstrate the later.

“Uh, no. The CVE is valid, but it’s not about that.” You say, scrambling. “The dev cycle! It was already scheduled for release, so it’s not necessary to disclose. If everyone disclosed security bugs, we’d have too much information and we wouldn’t be able to filter for the notices we care about.” You retort, not realizing that you had already conceded that this wasn’t about the fact you didn’t care about the CVE, and instead arguing that less information is better rather than building tools to cope with the number of CVEs that are increasing regardless of their relevance to you personally.

“Frivolous” “Frivolous” “Frivolous”

Is it because it’s a DOS? No. That’s valid.

Feature off by default? No, that still warrants CVE.

Feature labeled Beta or Experimental? Nope, still warranted.

You must be one of those newcomers big mad F5 now has control of the record and you can’t pad your cv.

Girl, you’re saying you trust software that documents security vulnerabilities that don’t apply to you less than one that doesn’t document those vulnerabilities?

A CVE isn’t a black mark on a projects reputation.

Because of the way you misused terms, I’m guessing you’re not particularly familiar with cybersecurity. It’s an ever more important field for sysadmins and devs. I recommend taking the time to learn more.