[Tech_User_Stat]

No software is free from bugs. Category of software that undergo extensive verification like aerospace are priced far higher to accommodate the additional QA. If such extensive verification are added to average consumer or even business software, the massive costs will pass down to average users making it too expensive. Security practices need to improve but I don't think 0-day droppers are the answer. Not every threat actor is at the same skill-level. Immediate public disclosure provides them the opportunity to hit endpoints that they would not have hit coz of low skills.

[everforward]

Software is the only field where people will routinely argue producers can’t be expected to make a product that won’t harm its users and I don’t buy it.

The way your argument reads to me is “software as a category has such little utility that profit margins can only be derived from corner cutting”.

The reality of the landscape is that most companies don’t get hacked as the result of an incredible and novel Spectre-esque attack, it’s something bland and entirely preventable.

Eg https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-31324

SAP got a CVE because they just flat out didn’t implement auth on an endpoint in an app architecture that will execute files just for being in a certain directory, and also didn’t prevent writing files to executable paths (or maybe that’s how the feature works, not a SAP person). For every 0 day with a novel root, there are like a thousand that are some kind of humdrum “didn’t enforce auth/SQL sanitation/XSS/other well known exploit with comprehensive solutions”.

I do think there are good reasons to withhold some classes of exploit. If a hacker writes a 14 page proof on how to beat some encryption we had no idea was vulnerable, that’s one thing. Getting owned for making an insecure architecture and then not even putting auth over it is a whole other issue.

[Tech_User_Stat]

Now that I've thought more about it, I agree with you. Most companies fall prey to well known exploits that are not that expensive to mitigate.

I think it's mostly ship product faster > secure product first that leads to such insecure architecture. Ideally, security should be incorporated early in the software development life cycle but most start-ups rarely hire a security guy in the initial phases. https://www.reddit.com/r/indianstartups/comments/1r6zwbg/why... They expect the software devs to have that knowledge. But security hardening is a skill that takes time to develop so most devs just focus on feature development.

Even for well-established companies, most security teams are not given top priority. ->https://www.reddit.com/r/ITManagers/comments/1qwnywo/devs_ig... ->https://www.reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/comments/wjypns/does_... ->https://www.reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/comments/1fjnl9j/fed_...

Will immediate public disclosures change the mindset of top leadership regarding security? For some, yes but most will not change because breaches have become too common. They reason if top tech firms like Microsoft or GitHub can suffer breaches and come out on the other side unscathed, they too can survive a major security incident.