I think I know why they claim a need to rewrite their downloader, it's because of the way the loader does implicit loading of DLLs at process initialization.
This implicit loading is vulnerable to DLL hijacking , and mitigations like SetDLLDirectory() and such don't help because it happens before any code in their updater gets to run -- even if they use a custom entry point. You can see this yourself by using WinDbg with Loader Snaps enabled , you will see DLL loads occurring before any of your own code gets to run.
So, one good way to defend against DLL hijacking, given this, is to make sure your downloader has no dependencies on Microsoft APIs except for those in kernel32.dll (and I suppose user32.dll). These DLLs are 'special case' DLLs that can't be hijacked due to their presence in the KnownDLLs list.
But, taking an updater with heavy dependence on Microsoft APIs and reducing this dependency across the board might easily require a big rewrite.

I agree...The original article is definitely BS...I've spent months at high altitude (13000ft+) in the himalayas, and food tastes great there. Cabins are indeed pressurized to 8000ft, I've verified this with the altimiter on my watch (which works off barometric pressure) while flying.

I feel compelled to relate my good experience with a Manhattan broker. In 1998, I rented a 3K/month 1600 square foot loft in the financial district of Lower Manhattan. I paid the standard 15% of a years rent commission to the broker, a nice woman in her 30s. The landlord required a 9K dollar security deposit, which I paid. When I moved out 2 years later, after having the place professionally cleaned , I met the broker, who was practically in tears, to get my deposit back. It turned out that the landlord had left her an envelope with 6K dollars in it, saying that was the amount of my deposit he was returning, offerning no other explanstion. Then he got on a plane to Israel. She absolutely went nuts and swore that she would get me my money back. She called him (and secretly let me listen on the call) and asked him what the problem was, and he told her it was none of her business and to stay out of it. She told him that she couldn't do business with him if he was going to cheat people, and gave up his listing. She then got an ex-boyfriend of hers, a very prominent Jewish lawyer involved, at no expense to me. He resolved the matter by calling my landlord and threatening to make him persona non grata in the community for 'giving Jewish people in Manhattan a bad name'. I do not know whether or not he also threatened legal action. My landlord returned the rest of my deposit that week. So, in my case the broker earned her fee. Ken