The problem is that it was not really a GitHub issue, it's Rails having a grossly insecure default setting. According to one of the comments in the bug tracker a lot of other high-profile sites also have the same problem. And presumably new ones would keep popping up for as long as Rails is the new hotness.
So disclosing the problem to GitHub would not solve anything. They'd deploy the fix, but a lot of other sites remain vulnerable. That's probably the case even if GitHub were willing to take a PR hit and admit they'd been insecure for a long time in order to spur other Rails users to fix their code. After all, they hadn't fixed their code after the previous widely published security problems caused by the same underlying issue.
Clearly the Rails core team were not willing to consider any kind of changes to improve the situation. As such, you can argue that making as big a scene as possible is the best way to improve security globally. It's of course unfortunate for GitHub that he chose to use that site as the example due to the obvious reasons. And certainly the timing is about as unfriendly as possible from the point of view of a west coast person.
* it provides a how to for other individuals to repeat the attack, in a public forum.
* it was made against an innocent third-party.
* I doubt steps were taken to contact the third-party.
* it was made on a Sunday morning. making it difficult to scramble and get a fix out the door.
"Clearly the Rails core team were not willing to consider any kind of changes to improve the situation"
The ticket was opened three days ago. Are you advocating that if an issue isn't resolved in an open-source project, in under a week, the individual raising the issue should be able to publicly attack anyone using the project?
Also, I'll put this gem of a quote out there:
"not only github is vulnerable this way - I found a lots of rails apps that are waiting for my hack! Yeah, it is only start" (mwahahahaha).
I already agreed that GitHub were innocent bystanders and that the timing was unfortunate. But if getting publicity to the issue was the main point, it's also easy to see why GitHub was the perfect target. I also already explained why it could make perfect sense to demonstrate the vulnerability in a public manner rather than just disclose it to one of the many sites suffering from the problem. None of that is a sign of malice, it's at most bad judgement.
The ticket having been opened only three days ago would be a good point if it hadn't also been closed and declared to be working as intended with a pointer to a previously closed bug about the same issue.
I'm finding it pretty hard to stay mad at someone with this tattoo:
And the octocat tattoo... How can you not like a guy with an octocat tattoo!