I'm automatically itchy when people talk about "ethical disclosure". If you truly do believe that people who become aware of vulnerabilities are ethically obligated to disclose them, setting terms on how they do that seems hard to defend. "Ethical" or "responsible disclosure" seem more like coercive rhetorical devices to get unpaid researchers to adopt the values and priorities of vendors than anything else --- that's part of the reason the term "responsible disclosure" has fallen out of fashion (it's been replaced with "coordinated disclosure", which is value-neutral).
If you don't believe that your value system binds anyone else to behave in a certain way then how much does it really bind you to behave that way? Ethics and morality are either objective and universally binding or they're merely an arbitrary personal inclination that isn't even binding on those that have the inclination beyond legal or professional implications.
Ethics is hard. There's a reason it's not a solved problem.
Why is generally not wanting to hurt people a "reasonable foundational belief?" It's definitely not universal in humanity right now let alone historically just look at the celebrations of war crimes in Russia. Everyone who thinks there are binding ethical beliefs in any way must ascribe it to others otherwise they're just talking about personal taste and we don't need words like "ethics" or "morals."
Unfortunately this point doesn't prove/refute any point about morality.
Because most of the russians pro-war idiots (including most propaganda producers) sincerely believe propaganda and from their moral perspective they really are doing good by fighting Ukranian war criminals.
It's also possible this is a feature, not flaw. There's longstanding suspicion that some Chinese made camera have vulnerabilities for their benefit. Several manufacturers are based from government use over these concerns.