You couldn’t even be bothered to get Wordfence’s name right, but is there anything you are claiming is inaccurate in the post or is this just an ad hominem attack because you can’t handle them being legitimately criticized?
You were criticizing us for what you claimed is a “poorly written article and poorly made site”, so getting things wrong yourself stands out.
We don’t have any axe to grind. We do have to deal with the results of Wordfence making false claims about vulnerabilities. As was the case with what led to us finding a serious vulnerability, after they falsely claimed there had been a vulnerability in a plugin that one of our customers started using. A lot of other people do as well, like when an unfixed vulnerability was widely exploited months after they claimed it had been fixed.
What are you claiming is misleading and also disingenuous?
Again… I’m not advertising my comments on Lemmy. You are advertising your little blogscam site. Don’t try to pretend like my autocorrect change has any significance to my point.
And you definitely do have an axe to grind. Your article about Wordfence “lying” is so blatantly a revenge piece when the crux of the article is claiming that they are pretending to own wordpress.org. They’re not doing any such thing. Their claim falls within that part of the DMCA, that’s why that was selected as the response. They didn’t claim to own the site or domain for wordpress.org. They claimed to own the content you plagiarized/stole.
You are engaged in ad hominem attacks and then appear to be getting angry that someone else responds in the same way. Please grow up.
It wasn’t a revenge piece and the crux of the article you are referencing, but Wordfence literately claimed that wordpress.org was their website. They said “The information cited in the blog post was directly taken from our website” and then listed their website as wordpress.org. It obviously isn’t true that it is their website, but it is what they claimed.
We didn’t plagiarize or steal anything. We were quoting Wordfence to point out that things they were saying were not true.
If you are claiming that someone isn’t telling the truth, to be fair, you would want to quote what they actually said instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks on them. That is what we did. For example, we quoted a two sentence description for what they claimed was a vulnerability and then explained why it wasn’t true. We clearly were not plagiarizing them, since we were quoting them. We also were not stealing anything, as we were noting their information was wrong. It seems like you can’t handle someone pointing out that Wordfence says things that are not true. That seems to be a common problem with their fanboys.
Wordfence filed DMCA takedown requests that were not legitimate. They claimed, for example, that we quoted them “without authorization and without citing the original source”. We cited the original source (it’s how they knew what we were quoting in the first place) and you don’t need authorization to quote someone.
This is why you’re being dishonest. You took that statement from the DMCA notice. That notice is generated by a form. They didn’t type that statement. They had to choose it from a list because their actual complaint is that you took their text from their plugin page on wordpress.org - what would be classed as an allowable use of the DMCA takedown. You’re being disingenuous in claiming that Wordfence is making the claim they own wordpress.org. There’s not a single person who knows what Wordfence is that would confuse their statement with a claim of ownership over the entire wordpress.org domain.
Also, learn what an ad hominem is. Your article is poorly written. Your website looks like something that a terrorist bomber built as a manifesto. If you expect anyone to take you seriously, stick with evidenced claims of objective fact rather than dishonest interpretations and make sure your website looks better than had it been built by a child.
All of them provided protection without a rule written for the specific vulnerability being exploited, so they will protect against similiar vulnerabilities in the future as well.
pluginvulnerabilities.com
Hot