In any case, in your posting (I see that you wrote that info tidbit):
1) most of the page was advertisement. I don't mean only the various side-bar and in-line ads, and massive numbers of links to other content from the same site, but the text itself including things like "Attackers can exploit your PC remotely" where "exploit" had a mouseover to an ad to "Watch TV live" and "your PC" was an iPhone mouseover ad.
2) the information was wrong: there is no known exploit. The actual published bug "allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service or possibly have unspecified other impact via unknown vectors that trigger an integer truncation". This may or may not be an exploit.
"An integer overflow in the libpng library can lead to a heap-buffer overflow when decompressing certain PNG images. This leads to a crash, which may be potentially exploitable."
Regarding mouse over ads, apologies for not providing a good reading experience. Since the original link is in blue and the ad is in green, I thought it was easily distinguishable. I will look after it.
"May be potentially exploitable" is not the same as "can". Your article several times says "can".
I hate reading spam-filled "news" sites, and would rather read the original news, or insightful commentary. As this is "Hacker News", the commentary you provided was not insightful to its expected audience.
