A weird take.

As a customer, I'd immediately assume no one in the security community would trust them again, and seek someone else to give my money to. Why pay a) an untrustworthy company who b) now is not trusted by anyone and c) won't ever be able to early release again anyhow? And if anything, are left out of important conversations.

Way to burn bridges. You only get to be an asshat once.

▲

dylan604 a day ago | parent | next [-]

> You only get to be an asshat once.

I have seen no evidence to back up this claim. Quite the contrary actually.

▲

richwater a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> You only get to be an asshat once.

TIL observing an exploit in the wild, after the details leaked during the embargo and pushing a fix for your customer is "being an asshat".

▲

angry_octet 3 hours ago | parent [-]

But they didn't observe any exploits in the wild. They may have believed there were exploits, but no evidence of this. Also no evidence that sought to communicate the need to end the embargo earlier. Instead they sought short term commercial advantage.

My advice to their customers is to leave, Chainguard will be the last to know about exploits in future.

	▲	McShauno an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Embargoes only help bad actors now.