In recent times, it has become increasingly common to hype up vulnerabilities and create an air of terror around them. We have seen this happen in the past with vulns such as Heartbleed, Shellshock, Spectre, and Meltdown.
Now, In those cases, the extreme hyping and media freakouts about them were rather justified. These were bug vulnerabilities, and the more publicity they got, the better, as more people could be aware of the threat.
However, I feel that this could become a very bad trend, and could be used by (((them))) for nefarious purposes. Certain actors with malicious intents could over-hype or fabricate vulnerabilities in an attempt to sway the public's choices and mislead them.
Need proof? We've technically already seen it happen twice. First it was CTS-Labs's clear attempt to manipulate the market through their amdflaws.com website, which tried to make people think there was some spectre/meltdown-tier stuff happening with AMD processors, with catchy names like Ryzenfall, Masterkey, Fallout, and Chimera. The vulnerabilities require administrative account access to the machine in order to exploit, and according to some anons at the time, you actually need physical access to the machine, although CTS-Labs would like you to believe otherwise.
Another example would be Efail. I'm not really 100% sure on this one, but from what I gather, most of it could be dodged by simply using plaintext email. The EFF on the other hand, decided to tell readers of their blog to STOP USING PGP ENTIRELY!!
It was also easy to see in some of those articles that they were shilling hard for Signal: a centralized """private""" messaging app. Suspicious, wouldn't you say? especially as Signal is, as I said, not decentralized.
I really hope this doesn't become a big trend. I can see it being used to try to get people to use less secure or more spying software out of fear of a made up scare. Your thoughts?