| ▲ | weird-eye-issue 5 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If they fixed the exploit then what do you want them to do? Do they need to wait an arbitrary amount of time before setting it to resolved? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | eddythompson80 5 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't disagree with you, but I think generally when the mistake involves compromised user data, the answer is a bit more emotionally driven. People get rightfully mad when things like that happens, and services usually keep the incident in a "Mitigated" status while they "work with their customers to ensure blah blah blah" or whatever. Everywhere I've personally worked the Mitigated->Resolved involves publishing a postmortem, repair items, and general assurances or safe guards based on learnings from the incident that the issue won't happen again. However, the industry as a whole doesn't have a standard for what the line between Mitigation and Resolution is. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||