The question How do we instruct our employees to protect themselves from Heartbleed? was closed as a duplicate of Heartbleed: What is it and what are options to mitigate it?. Was that closure in error?

The closed question is all about how to instruct our clients (users) to protect themselves against Heartbleed. The canonical question appears to be all about how to protect our servers against heartbleed.

There is some room for ambiguity: The title and text of the canonical question is quite broad, mentioning neither server nor user. The answers to the canonical question, however, are all about the server. The question has clearly been understood to be about the server, not the user.

  • Should the closure stand because the question is truly a duplicate?
  • Should the closure stand because the question is not really about system administration, but is a user question in a thin disguise?
  • Should the closure be undone? If so, should the canonical question be edited to make it clear that it is about the server?
  • Should the closed question be merged with the canonical question?
  • You linked to the same question twice...
    – Bob
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 11:47
  • @Bob, Thanks. Fixed. Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 11:49
  • Something you've missed - Should we on SF care about how you interact with your customers.
    – user9517
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 12:03
  • @Iain My question is about what to tell my company's employees, not its customers. There seems to be more ambiguity in my question than I thought. Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 12:06
  • 5
    @WayneConrad: Well yes, you consistently use client rather than employee for starters.
    – user9517
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 12:08
  • @Ian That was a retarded choice of words on my part. Thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed it. Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 12:15
  • 3
    While possibly not a duplicate, I think it should remain closed as "too localized" (a close reason that used to exist and still can be utilized as custom, only because your employees vs. others are different. What you tell your employees is based on your company culture, the mediums used to disseminate information, how intelligent or unintelligent your employee base is, etc. Explaining Heartbleed to a programming/devops company vs. explaining it to an office full of admin assistants is two totally different things.
    – TheCleaner
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 13:26

1 Answer 1


As TheCleaner pointed out, this is "too localized" for Server Fault.

Since we don't know what your company does (the advice for a medical services company or DoD contractor will be substantially different from a company that sells coffee mugs), or what each employee you're intending to speak with does (different job roles require different briefings - the front-desk greeter and the head of software development probably shouldn't get the same lecture) we really can't answer this question for you, or for anyone else.

Ultimately the best answer we can provide is "Tell your employees what they need to know in order to do their jobs effectively.", but that's completely useless advice - you and your boss (or if you're a C-level officer the rest of the board) will need to discuss this internally and decide what needs to be communicated.

  • This makes perfect sense. Thank you. Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 14:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .