Reading the blog post, it's a lot more nuanced than that: someone reported a CVE, which was related to a possible int overflow in client code handling the timeout between requests. NVD chose to grade this as a 9.8/10 on their severity scale (for context, CVE-2014-0160, also known as Heartbleed, got a 7.5/10), which is ludicrous for a bug which could at most change the retry timeout of your request from your intended years to a few seconds. Daniel says that this is not a security vulnerability at all and has no business being listed on the CVE database, whereas NVD argues that it's a bug, it's been reported to them and because overflows are undefined behavior, anything can happen and so it's a security vulnerability.
In the end, they agreed to at least adjust the severity down to a 3.3, but I can understand that Daniel is still somewhat miffed about it. Personally I also agree that it's not really a security issue and that even a 3.3 is too high in terms of severity.
Der riesige Vorteil von Raufasertapete (und der Grund warum ich sie wieder drauf pappe) ist mMn dass sie sehr viel verzeiht und kaschiert, wie das auch im Artikel kurz angesprochen wird. In meinem Fall (Altbauwand) war unter der alten Tapete eine unansehnliche Menge von alten Farbschichten, Spachtelmasse und blankem Putz, wo die alte Farbe abgeblättert war. Eh ich versuche, das alles schön glatt zu bekommen und perfekt auszubessern, mache ich lieber das gröbste (was auch schon viel ist) und klatsche dann Raufaser drüber. Ist aber auch nur eine Mietwohnung, im Eigenheim würde ich da vermutlich auch anders rangehen.
Dankeschön!