Security researcher sued for 'intention' to cause harm

From the complaint:

Before any such “vulnerability” could have any chance to impact a user, the user would have to be subject to specific conditions and take the following steps: (1) the user would have to separately install the Keeper Browser Extension; then (2) sign into the Keeper Browser Extension (which requires the user to first have a registered Keeper account); then (3) create and store (or have existing and >previously created) website login credentials inside their Keeper Vault; then (4) visit a malicious website set up to steal a user’s website login credentials; then (5) the malicious website would have to inject a specific type of malware into the Keeper Browser Extension.

...and before GM's ignition switch "defect" would have any chance to impact a driver, they'd have to (1) have a heavy key chain, (b) drive often enough to wear the switch, (c) be in a particular driving situation where a cutoff risks loss of control, and (d) have the cutoff actually occur.

The fundamental concept of "vulnerability" seems lost on this plaintiff and his attorneys.

We can only hope that the post-Equifax climate has little tolerance for this sort of legal umbrage related to security problems.

TL;DR: Keeper (a company making password manager) is suing @dangoodin001 and @arstechnica et al for allegedly "false and misleading" statements about a security flaw: https://twitter.com/zackwhittaker/status/943533616667250694

At first I thought this was likely to trigger the Streisand effect - but after looking through the document, if the bug exists in a separately installed application that cannot be used without registering, the statements by Ars Technica look to be quite misleading.

edit: To elaborate - the article seems quite sensationalist and attempted to imply that Win 10 by default "forces" an app on users that if used would expose their credentials. The users of the app are indeed at risk if they use the vulnerable plugin, however the article seems to imply a much more direct relationship with Keeper putting all Win 10 users at risk. This comes down to either bad journalism (not understanding the issue) or sensationalist journalism (trying to make the story seem bigger than it is). Either way I can defintiely see that this would cause harm to Keeper, and Ars continued to present the issue in a way that dramatized the risks, despite being presented with the facts.