Possibly. If the summary is correct, this would be abysmally bad. Although it seems the vulnerability was only there for a short time, and they possibly did not fix, but roll-back to get rid of it. Fixes take some time, roll-backs are almost instantaneous. Roll-backs can only be done for an not very old previous version though, so they likely had one that was still fine.

Then testing either sucks completely or ignores security functionality. This really is an absolute basic thing to test, just as testing that giving a wrong password does not give you access. The state of practical software engineering seems to still be abysmal, even after this problem has been known for a few decades. It is high time to legally bar amateurs from doing software that has any security functionality that protects customer assets and data.

Relevance to my statement: none.

No, I disagree with it being "unclear why the decrypted version cannot be saved or otherwise copied in some manner". It is quite clear that it can.

Some reading comprehension required when trying to tell other people what they mean to say....

I disagree. It it quite clear that the decrypted email can easily be copied in digital and analog form. This thing is utterly worthless as a security feature.

In essence, the email can "self-destruct" if the receiver allows it. I think there might be a slight security problem here, such as the "designers" of this thing not having even a basic understanding of IT security.

Even better: This thing has a digital hole. Incompetent security-wannabes come up with things like these time and again, but they never work because they cannot work.

You can keep them by screenshot. You can forward them by screenshot. The security value of this feature is zero. At best it represents a mild annoyance to the receiver that wants to keep or forward them. Snake-oil "security" at its best.

Ah, so that annoyance. I usually leave pages that do that on the web as well and right away. They obviously do not care about their visitors. Probably the only thing these do is annoy people, I cannot really imagine anybody paying attention to them.

Interesting. Apparently, this is yet another case of a "journalist" spicing up the story, only to lose its relevance and accuracy completely.

To scientists and engineers, it is. And with good reason.

I don't think Meg wants so save the company. Charley was just completely incompetent, but Meg strikes me as intentionally evil.

Depending on the industry, black jeans (in good condition) are acceptable, but blue may not be.

Dress codes are always praised by those that cannot offer anything else besides conformance. At the moment, many companies are getting rid of the creative thinkers (to their long-term detriment), and a dress-code is a good way to do that, as creative thinkers really hate spending time on complete side-issues like dress.

All it will do for HP is that the remaining (few) good engineers and scientists will take a hard look at their other prospects and some will leave. A tech company that does not place the techies first is dead in the long run.