> I NEVER received a thank you from any of these people.
Is it possible that they (perhaps mistakenly) believe that communicating with you could open them up to civil liability?
Is it possible that they (perhaps mistakenly) believe that communicating with you could open them up to civil liability?
There, nothing was admitted.
I would hope any well-intentioned and reputable company would not mind, but some might not want to admit any of that! Plenty of ammo for anyone who subsequently blames you if you then fail to remedy the situation in a timely fashion.
If the company is too small to monitor their own pages then I'd expect them not to be worried about this sort of liability (ie knowing of a breach, they're too small to be sued for much, presumably: if they were bigger they'd know about it already).
Both have an abuse / phishing declaration form online. I signaled both pages, and they are still up for the moment.
I'm curious, for vulnerability-by-inaction like this, would there be a legal difference if sent emails were posted to a public blockchain?
The intent being, if you're later sued for harm caused by your compromised hardware / IoT devices, you cannot claim ignorance as easily.
End goal, of course, being that people care more about patching their devices.
That's not necessarily easy to prove, in the same way the defendant could claim emails were trapped in spam filters, etc. or more realistically, the burden of proof is on the claimant so the defendant wouldn't say anything if they're smart.