If a Linux distro released a kernel patch for a super-critical security vulnerability that lied about its nature, AND downplayed its importance, users would go apeshit (justifiably).
You're still making no sense. Various large projects, including the kernel, have seen silent security patches (yes, even by Linus himself).
Also there is no "downplaying" in declaring any kind of problem as a remote SQL injection vulnerability. That is still obviously urgent enough for everyone to patch immediately. Yet it doesn't attract blackhats in the same way as blarting "remote code injection".
Mis-labeling a Remote Code Execution vulnerability as SQL-I is absolutely downplaying the severity. SQL-I is a bad finding, RCE is tantamount to the worst thing you could possibly find in an application.
There were people on this very site who were commenting about whether they should concern themselves with this patch (initially because people erroneously attributed the vuln to SQL-I, and then later because they "weren't using XML anyway")
Those kinds of things happen when you don't clearly describe what a vulnerability is, and when you try to mask how big of a deal something is.
This was a huge vulnerability. It was critically important that everyone running a Rails app fix it immediately. Shouting that from the rooftops was absolutely the right approach. Cloak and Dagger bullshit to try and hide that is unequivocally a bad idea.
Well, the votes are strongly in your favor, but I remain unconvinced - accepting that I'm in the minority here.
For me this very article (bitcoin exchange being hacked) demonstrates that despite the harsh wording, the advisory didn't reach everyone in time. Not even those who should really care (like bitcoin exchanges).
I still think the explicit disclosure did more harm than good, by drawing maximum attention from the blackhat-community without really improving the reach amongst the oblivious. I still think a "staged" disclosure might have worked better, even at the risk of the timeline being short-circuited by a malicious party spilling the beans early.
However, there's little point bemoaning this particular baby or bathwater much more now.
I'm more interested in the steps that the Rails-team will be taking to lessen the blow by future security incidents. As I've said in another thread I'd be in favor of an optional (opt-in) kill-switch, to be triggered only in drastic cases like this one. Perhaps that is a point where we can agree again - otherwise we'll have to part in disagreement. :)
I don't understand how the Rails team could plausibly have slowed down the disclosure. The exploit wasn't proprietary information, and it was easy to find.
I don't want to drag this out further (all said and voted I think), so I'll only briefly refer to my idea of an "obscured" patch. Not pretty by any metric and definitely not a template for future incidents. But I still think it could have stretched the timespan a bit between the discovery by security-researchers/rails-hackers - and that afternoon when our Rails-intern (beginner ruby frontend coder) proudly showed us how he reproduced it in his rails console...
