[throwaway613834]

That's a total straw man. You don't need to keep up with CVE. You really think I learned about e.g. StageFright through reading CVE or expected you to do that? If there's a serious vulnerability that actually needs your attention, you will read about it in the news (certainly on HN, most likely also the general news if it affects a sizable population). You will become aware of it somehow, most likely before a patch is even released. You won't need to put any time into it until it happens, and even then the mitigation (like e.g. disabling automatic MMS download here) will usually be far faster than the time to buy a new phone, set up your apps again, and move everything over. Not to mention that the phone you buy won't be updated to that very day anyway, so you'll have more upgrading to do soon after. Seriously, you're way blowing it out of proportion.

[mrmagooey]

> If there's a serious vulnerability that actually needs your attention, you will read about it in the news

The ol' security through tech press approach. Seriously though, you can't have the security of your devices dependent on whether or not someone has come up with a catchy name for their exploit. The exploits with names like broadpwn and stagefright are the exceptions, not the rules, there are plenty of critical CVE's that have never had cool names or tech articles written about them. Even if an exploit has a cool name and some press, what if people don't upvote it when it gets posted here (or reddit/wherever)?

[throwaway613834]

You seem to think that a security hole being "critical" implies you need to care about it. You do not. You only need to care about actual threats, not mere security holes. A "critical" CVE that nobody exploits is pretty darn pointless to worry about, just like how the fact that cellular communication is plaintext isn't really tickling too many people because the average criminal isn't using a Stingray. And an expoit that becomes widespread will get the press attention, precisely because people will want to know about it. (Unless you're the kind of person who's always one of the first few to catch a virus, in which case either you're a security researcher, or you're looking for trouble, or you're hanging out on the wrong networks...)

[ryanlol]

>And an expoit that becomes widespread will get the press attention, precisely because people will want to know about it.

As you're clearly entirely clueless about security, how do you know this?

If you primarily get your security news via the press, how do you know that they aren't simply missing most things?

[ryanlol]

>If there's a serious vulnerability that actually needs your attention, you will read about it in the news

No, this is fucking stupid. Most security related bugs get zero visibility, Linux for example still has a policy to quietly patch them.

[throwaway613834]

> No, this is fucking stupid.

Well, now I'm definitely convinced...

> Most security related bugs get zero visibility, Linux for example still has a policy to quietly patch them.

Most security bugs don't need your attention either, because they don't have widespread exploits.

Read the prior comments; don't just curse in reply to a single sentence while ignoring all the prior context.

[ryanlol]

>Most security bugs don't need your attention either, because they don't have widespread exploits.

But if you do anything interesting with your life this simply isn't an useful argument.