nagaiaida
Joined 6 years ago
Karma
107
Submissions
115
Member since
Aug 28
Joined 6 years ago
as it stands though, what i replied to wasn't a useful addition to the discussion. it could easily become so by either being made contingent upon the possibility of that being a lie, or being bundled with an assertion like yours that chainguard is not to be taken at their word. doing neither and simply responding as if a causally opposite statement had been made is just a non sequitur.
are we to somehow count the hypothetical future exploitees that may yet be helped by avoiding disclosure 1–1 against the actual literal current exploitees harmed by further postponing the fixes landing?
if you email me, there's a good chance my replies will go to your spam folder.