[stevefan1999]

I also guess you haven't read the article too:

> And the real irony? The legal threats are the reputation damage. Not the vulnerability itself - vulnerabilities happen to everyone. It's the response that tells you everything about an organization's security culture.

See. The moral of the story is that the entity care more about their face than the responsibility to fix the bug, that's the biggest issue.

He also pointed out bugs do happens and those are reasonable, and he agreed to expose them in an ethical manner -- but the goodwill, no matter well or ill intentioned, those responses may not come with the same good tolerations, especially when it comes to "national" level stuff where those bureaucrats knows nothing about tech but they knew it has political consequences, a "deface" if it was exposed.

Also, I happened to work with them before and know exactly why they have a lot of legal documents and proceedings, and that's because of bureaucracy, the bad kind, the corrupt kind of bureaucracy such that every wrong move you inflicted will give you huge, if not capitcal punishment, so in order to protect their interest, they rather do nothing as it is unfortunately the best thing. The risk associated of fixing that bug is so high so they rather not take it, and let it rot.

There's a lot of system in Hong Kong that is exactly like that, and the code just stay rotten until the next batch of money comes in and open up new theatre of corruption. Rinse and repeat