It's fair to say that this is still a theoretical attack. As authors of this paper mentioned, they don't see a way of turning the "flaw" into a real exploit.
"We stress that this is a theoretical attack on the definition of security and we do not see any way of turning the attack into a full plaintext-recovery attack."
... which appears wrong, and even published after the other paper?
For example, check out https://www.openssl.org/~bodo/tls-cbc.txt. This is a document published by Bodo Moeller in the early 2000s that details multiple theoretical weaknesses in the CBC mode used in TLS. Read it top to bottom and see how many practical attacks on TLS you can count.
I don't know why this paper was published independently, as it's a building block for the other attack.