>>924453
i-im sorry im such a baka ;_;
>>924452
Its not anti-ethical to anonymity. My real name is obviously not cuteposter
>The whole PGP wasn't a hoax but it wasn't something to be technically worried about
my understanding of it was that going plaintext-only was a temporary solution this whole time, or that it wasn't all that serious as some were saying. I'm not that clear on it, but thats the impression I got from anons talking.
If that's the case, EFF really overhyped this and was super misleading. I agree there was probably something deeper going on there. My theory on that was that whether the vulnerablity was serious or not, the EFF used it as an opportunity to shill for Signal. Not the wisest choice imo, as it's super centralized.
This brings up another point. The sensationalization and naming of vulnerabilities. It's becoming a real thing now in the tech industry, ever since heartbleed from what I can tell. Now in the case of ones like heartbleed, shellshock, spectre, meltdown, and all those 'spectre 2.0' vulns coming out frequently now, it's actually a really good thing. Big vulns need to be discussed and reported on like this to get the word out to people. However, I can see it leading to a lot of intentional false positives. There will be a lot of kikes who will use this to reduce the public's trust in a perfectly fine or only slightly flawed solution and lead them back to the usual botnets. We've already seen this with (((CTS-Labs))) and the fake/overhyped AMD flaws that were reported on clearly as an attempt to get people to go back to (((Intel))) processors. And now potentially Efail was another similar thing.
I really hope this doesn't become a trend..
>>924475
>cute anime boy
ftfy