upvote
and I prefaced my quotes with the statement "So I feel like the argument reduces into". I mean, idk what punctuation I'm supposed to use there that doesn't offend you, but I just figured we can all read words and it was clear that I wasn't saying you said that, but rather, as I read the argument it was reducable to that and I took issue with that potential reduction.

The idea about the available exploit space and how the actors within it might, or might not move is a much more interesting avenue of conversation and I thank you for elaborating on your initial comment. <3

I do however feel that its hard to be confident about whether or not the attack space has been increased or reduced as a consequence of the eager disclosure. I feel we could make the case either way.

reply
You could try to make that case either way, but as has been pointed out by others all over this thread, the system we've landed on (90/+30) is industry standard after over two and a half decades of experimentation.

Anything else inevitably has worse for the public good.

Having spent that entire time and then some on both offensive and defensive teams, I assure you longer delays after notification do NOT decrease the overall risk to the public.

There's a reason we've landed where we have as a security community.

reply