HN Reader

I don't understand why they wouldn't give a pre-release patch to the bug reporter (especially if it's someone like Google) for them to analyse before doing a final release.

If they were actively working with Project Zero instead of being seemingly silent, this wouldn't happen

This is where FOSS is still winning and will always win. Fixed happen in the open and bad fixes can be called out

It seems lately every piece of software is getting more and more vulnerabilities, failures, crashes. Microsoft products are exceptionally high in the list.

What’s the expectation for responsible disclosure when it comes to ineffective patches? Does that normally reset the counter to 90 days, or only if the patch was reasonable and in good faith?

It should be noted that Google Project Zero doesn't care whether a software product is maintained by multi-trillion corporations or a single volunteer. Imposing an "industry-standard" 90-day deadline on a unpaid solo developer without offering any help or compensation whatsoever is not sustainable. It forced me to step down as maintainer of libxslt: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxslt/-/issues/127