<i>&gt; It&#x27;s dumb is what it is.</i><p>Steady on there. The author has clearly done a lot of work on this and while your points are valid, that this method of attack isn&#x27;t new nor practical, he has still learned a very genuine potential vector for attack. Thus it deserves a mature discussion since there will certainly be others who might learn from the author&#x27;s research.<p>I&#x27;m all for constructive criticisms, but calling his article &quot;dumb&quot; is just unnecessary language. It doesn&#x27;t contribute anything and yet could discourage authors from publishing future work.