[_laiq]

The way I see it is, say, you own a house. And you're having someone telling you that it is not properly secured.

If I come up to you, the owner, and kindly warn you that your doors can easily be unlocked, your reaction would probably be a big thank you. But, I also understand that you are free to answer me to get the hell out of your lawn, because it's none of my business.

Sure I am doing it for your safety, for the safety of your kids, your wifes, and your valuables. I have no ulterior motives.

But, you have the right to not want to listen to all the ways an intruder can come to your house and steal all your stuff. You should have the right to find that information useless, and I don't have any say in that.

Now, warning all the town that your house is not secure enough to try to provoke an answer from you ? What do you think about that ? Really curious.

[geek_at]

well in my article I never mentioned their name and pixelated the screenshots. The local paper did the same, it was more of a story "if an it security person tells you you have a problem, you should listen"

In the end it turned out that they didn't "not want to listen" the information just never got to the right person (internally) and I talked quite a bit with the owner (after understanding everything he even thanked me) and he said he never got a contact from CERT but I asked them and they said they wrote them twice.