In reply to KTS915.

@KTS915, I apologize for misrepresenting your words. When you said that, "she was just looking for fame" and was "just making a careless assumption without much thought", I felt like you were implying that she acted flippantly and carelessly rather than intentionally and thoughtfully, which is why I described it as "shits and giggles".

But you're right, your specific accusation was that she was motivated by fame, so I should have been more accurate.

I didn't respond to your point about assumptions directly because I felt like it was trying to debate the merits of full disclosure, which is not what I'm interested in -- except to the extent necessary to recognize that a rational, intelligent, sincere person could be an advocate of it. I'm perfectly happy if people want to criticize full disclosure, and I'm sympathetic to the reasons for doing so.

My concern has always been about how Yan has been characterized, so I tried to refocus the thread on that topic.

If don't see how a rational person could advocate for full disclosure, I'd encourage you to read the two articles than Yan referenced. The first is by Bruce Schneier, who is one of the most well-respected experts in the computer security field, and the second is by Google's security team, whose credentials don't need any explanation.

* https://www.schneier.com/essay-146.html
* http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2010/07/rebooting-responsible-disclosure-focus.html

I think there are completely valid reasons why you might disagree with those positions, but I don't think it's fair to claim that they're irrational.