[pseudalopex]

> If it's just to prove those two words wrong, then this repo seems extremely overblown. "It works like every other program in the world" isn't very exploity.

The FAQ author explained it worked like every other program in the world. Some people doubted him because why wouldn't he show proof if it was so easy? The tool author called it a very simple tool and no rocket science whatsoever.

> Also I don't think many people even saw or noticed that particular claim.

Fewer people will see this repo. What is the correct number of people before misinformation should be corrected?

[Dylan16807]

> The FAQ author explained it worked like every other program in the world. Some people doubted him because why wouldn't he show proof if it was so easy? The tool author called it a very simple tool and no rocket science whatsoever.

The repo overall makes it sound like it's a way bigger issue than that.

[pseudalopex]

> The repo overall makes it sound like it's a way bigger issue than that.

The repo overall contains a tool the author said 3x was simple or not rocket science, an explanation of what the tool does, and someone else's FAQ about the context.

[Dylan16807]

It comes across as a rebuttal to any and all claims of security, not just the phrase "physical access".

[pseudalopex]

The idea the FAQ and tool were created to rebut the physical access claim only was a straw man you created. You said the claim remote access is possible confused you. lolinder explained it.

The repo demonstrated the FAQ's claims and gave people a tool to inspect the databases. Any other interpretation is your problem.