[tzs]

> That's called "security through obscurity," which isn't really security at all

That phrase is misused and misunderstood on the net almost as much as Benjamin Franklin's statement on freedom and security.

It means that you should not rely on obscurity to keep a system safe. In the long run, you have to assume the bad guys will find out all your bugs. If someone were suggesting that the flaw not be disclosed and that it would be OK for the vendor to not fix it since it is not disclosed, that would be attempting "security through obscurity" and would be bad.

We aren't talking about the long run here. The relevant question here is if in the time it takes to deploy a fix, will more people be harmed if the flaw is widely known than if the flaw is kept quiet while the fix is being deployed.

To answer this question, you need to consider several factors, including (1) what steps customers who learn of the flaw can and will actually do to mitigate its effect on them, (2) whether customers will actually learn about it, (3) how many bad guys who would not have discovered it on their own will exploit it after it is disclosed.

[saturdayplace]

Your reply contains exactly the kind of nuance I should have used above. I'm constantly complaining (mostly on facebook) about how arguments devolve into one-dimensional two-sided affairs, and here I fell into the same trap. Thank you for providing that clarification.