When it comes to finding serious errors in it software, how does MS define "responsibly disclosed?" Does it mean "Never!"

Mind you, I feel their pain. I would hate to do triage on their product line"s CVD, and that's even without considering all the crap reports everyone gets these days from folks whose expertise consists of reading chapter one from "ethical hacking for dummies" (now with free reporting templates).

Uncoordinated disclosures that put proof-of-concept code for unpatched vulnerabilities into the hands of bad actors are never justifiable and have real-world consequences.

From the standpoint of the actor and their own future career in bounty hunting, I'm certain that this is irrational -- I have few doubts they'll be blackballed across the board, though it sounds like this may have already occurred.

From a community perspective, a great many malicious actions have recently been taken by the Big Three, raising an unignorable amount of rancor in the bug-hunting community. These actions are irrational in and of themselves, eroding and eliminating trust in the corporations while crippling one of the biggest incentives bounty hunters have to continue their work.

Standing up and making it clear that these bounty programs operate on an understanding of trust -- and that said trust, if broken, will lead to Bad Things like This happening -- is, from a community standpoint, rational, logical and sane. It's possibly the only way to counter a unilateral corporate decision to break the social contract holding things together.

You're welcome! I'm not sure why creating and then posting an image of the text is considered easier?, more authentic?, or whatever; than just cutting and pasting the same text. I suppose it eliminates the need for quotation marks.

The merger of law enforcement and big tech gains pace.