deleted by creator

Certificate Transparency makes public all issued certificates in the form of a distributed ledger, giving website owners and auditors the ability to detect and expose inappropriately issued certificates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_Transparency

No, it is not “insecure.” It aligns with OWASP guidance: https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Forgot_Password_Cheat_Sheet.html

When would it be problematic? It would be problematic if they sent your actual password in cleartext as part of the “reset.” This would show that they can access your password in plain text within their database, which is the worst way of storing passwords on servers. (Dedicated password hashing algorithms exist to securely store passwords.) What they provided you is a one-time password.

This applies to all devices and is not specific to Apple, as long as you don’t audit and comprehend every piece of software involved.

Isn’t that already the case these days, or am I misunderstanding your comment? I mean, the NVD has been struggling with analysis for many months, and they typically provide their own CVSS 3.1 Base Score in addition to a CVSS Base Score from the CNA that issued the CVE Identifier. This means you can end up with one or two different CVSS Base Scores for the same CVE Identifier. As we know, both CVSS 3.1 and 4.0 have many limitations, including the fact that two security analysts can arrive at different assessments and thus different CVSS Base Scores. What I’m saying is that even now, you have to rely on the accuracy of the vulnerability assessment without question. There have been numerous instances where CVE Identifiers end up being marked as “DISPUTED.”

What should a screenshot that is about 12 years old prove or not prove? Technology has advanced significantly since then. Over the past decade, we’ve developed a range of new encryption algorithms, improved password hashing methods, TLS 1.3, post-quantum cryptography, and much more. The “Game of Trust” can be extended indefinitely, but using a 12-year-old screenshot as evidence for a situation in 2025 is questionable.