|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dan_JiuJitsu
3435 days ago
|
|
|
I stand by my assertion that the vulnerability exists exactly as described. You have said nothing that disputes that. If I understand you correctly, you take issue specifically with the characterization of the vulnerability as a 'backdoor', which suggests intent. I don't know the dev's intent, so I'm unable to speak to the validity of that characterization in that context. That said, the Guardian corrected the story in this regard, and the text now reads 'vulnerability', which I think we all can agree on. WhatsApp is not a secure communications platform. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous. |
|
|