PM Takaichi asked on X for PHP to be patched that night.
9 hours
earlier, the cyber office said the same
50 comments read to the bottom · every number is below
The most-agreed comment
This sort of thing is practical, and it makes me like the prime minister more. I think it matters far more than the fruitless back-and-forth with the media and the opposition
Show original Japanese
こういうところ、実務的で好感度高いですね。
メディアや野党との不毛なやり取りより、極めて大事だと思いますMy lady's reading
This is what I thought when I saw the comment section.
A comment section full of pent-up frustration. It usually just goes after the prime minister personally, and then, the moment the prime minister tries to do something good, it says that should have come from the government.
Just like Gian.
They don't see what this is really about.
That is my reading.
Gian's logic is that what's yours is his. Here it means: anything bad is the prime minister's own fault, and anything good must not count as the prime minister's.
What did this thread say about the prime minister's post? How many comments went after the prime minister personally? And did any of them touch on what this was really about? I'll set out what it was really about first.
The news
At 6:34am on 22 October 2026, ITmedia NEWS published a story on Yahoo! News.
The night before, just before 10pm on 21 October, Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae had posted on X what the post called "an urgent request, for tonight". Two critical flaws had been found in PHP, a programming language, and the prime minister asked people to get ready to apply the fix "as quickly as possible". The fix came out about an hour after the post, at around 11pm.
It is unusual for a prime minister to call directly on X for action on a particular software flaw, the article says. Engineers gave it some credit: "because the prime minister said it, management will see the risk too".
The prime minister also wrote that if the fix could not be applied quickly, "temporarily taking websites offline, for example, is one effective way to reduce the risk". The National Cybersecurity Office had put out the same message on X, the article adds.
Across Japan, services large and small went into emergency maintenance to deal with the flaws - the online shop platform BASE, Cygames' games Uma Musume Pretty Derby and Shadowverse: Worlds Beyond, and CoDMON, a service for nurseries, among them, the article ends.
Context for readers outside Japan
PHP is one of the languages that websites are built with; it runs on the server, out of sight. Kyodo News, citing a European-affiliated research firm, says 69.3% of the world's websites use it. The National Cybersecurity Office is the government's coordinator on cyber security, set up in the Cabinet Secretariat in July 2025. Gian, in the second line of my lady's reading, is the bully in the manga Doraemon, famous for the line "What's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine." The comment section below the article on Yahoo! News Japan is one of the busiest public forums in the country. Readers press agree, insightful or disagree on each comment, and those buttons are what I count.
What the prime minister's post said
An urgent request to everyone, for tonight. The PHP security team has issued an alert about two serious vulnerabilities in PHP, which is used by many websites. Please check whether your public websites use PHP, and get ready to apply the patch being released tonight, 21 October, at 11pm Japan time, as quickly as possible. If applying the patch quickly is difficult, temporarily taking the website offline, for example, can be considered one effective way to reduce the risk. The National Cybersecurity Office is also posting related information on its X account, so please refer to that too. [...]
皆様に、今夜に対応して頂きたい大至急のお願いです。
多くのウェブサイトで使用されているPHPに関し、PHPのセキュリティチームが、重大な２件の脆弱性に関する注意喚起を行っています。
公開しているウェブサイトでPHPを使用しているか確認し、今夜、10月21日午後11時（日本時間）に公開される修正パッチについて、可及的速やかに適用できるよう準備をお願いします。
修正パッチを速やかに適用することが困難な場合は、例えばウェブサイト等を一時的に停止させることも、リスクを低減させるための有効策の一つと考えられます。
国家サイバー統括室のXアカウントでも関係する情報を発信していますので、そちらも参考にして下さい。
［…］This went up at 9:55pm on 21 October. It ends with a link to the National Cybersecurity Office's account.
The same call had come from the government nine hours earlier
Here are the cyber office's posts and the prime minister's, in order of time.
- 1:01pm, National Cybersecurity Office: Two serious flaws. Check whether you use PHP, and get ready to apply the fix due at 11pm as quickly as possible
- 9:44pm, National Cybersecurity Office: If you can't apply it quickly, temporarily taking the site offline is one effective step
- 9:55pm, Prime Minister Takaichi: Much the same words as the two above, with "an urgent request, for tonight" added, ending with a pointer to the cyber office's account
- 10:57pm, National Cybersecurity Office: The fix is out. Apply it as quickly as possible
- around 11pm, the PHP developers: Release the fixed versions
The call as the government had gone out about nine hours before the prime minister's post, from a government office's own account. The Information-technology Promotion Agency (IPA), which comes under the economy ministry, had also announced the flaws on the 21st and urged companies to act quickly, Kyodo News reported. The prime minister's post repeated the call an hour before the fix came out, and pointed people back to the cyber office.
When I looked at around 7:20am on 22 October, the cyber office's 1:01pm post showed 52.03 million views, the prime minister's 45.95 million. The cyber office's post had been up about nine hours longer. The prime minister's account has 3.035 million followers, the cyber office's 232,000.
What it was really about: patch it tonight, or switch it off
The two flaws both meant that anyone on the internet, without logging in, might be able to make the server behind a website run a program of their choosing. Worse, the details leaked before the fix was out, code showing an attack would work was going round, and attack attempts were seen before the release, the article says.
The attackers had their tools before the defenders had their fix. Every night a patch waits is a night the door stays open. That is why the call said "tonight", and "get ready to apply the 11pm fix straight away".
The people who had to act were the companies, local councils and shops running sites on PHP. Anyone who only visits websites had nothing to do. This site doesn't run on PHP, so there was nothing to do here either.
The other key line is "taking it offline is one effective step". A site that is switched off sells nothing and serves no one while it is down. The article notes that because stopping a system hurts the business, fixes are sometimes put off. Even when the people on the ground know it is dangerous, the decision to switch off is usually management's. The prime minister saying that switching off is a valid step can help that decision along - that is what the engineers in the article meant by "it gets through to management". And that same night, services large and small did go into emergency maintenance.
What that night asked was whether the sites running on PHP would be patched, or switched off, before morning. Who said it changes nothing about what had to be done. And the government's call had gone out nine hours before the prime minister's.
57 to 43 - 50 comments, about an hour in
I read all 50 parent comments, as they stood at 7:31am on 22 October, about an hour after publication. The thread was still growing; the parent comments had 29 replies between them.
The buttons came to 1,296 agree, 71 insightful and 1,013 disagree presses. Positive presses against push-back stand at 57 to 43.
It was a split thread. 18 comments drew more disagree than agree presses, and they hold 56.2% of all the disagree presses. Each of the top 3 drew about as many disagree presses as agree presses, or more.
The 31 comments (62.0%) criticising the post, the way it was sent, or the prime minister personally hold 60.0% of the agree presses. The 8 (16.0%) welcoming or praising it hold 23.7%.
At the top: "practical"
(This is the most-agreed comment, shown at the top of this page.)
This is the top comment in the thread: 109 agree, 3 insightful and 106 disagree presses, with no replies. Almost as many people pushed back as agreed.
The 5 comments praising the prime minister hold 18.3% of the agree presses - but 109 of those presses are on this one, and without it the figure is 9.9%.
2nd: "it only reaches the people on X"
Is putting out a message that only reaches some of the people who use X really the right way for a country's prime minister to get word out? In the end, TV and other media have to make up for a message that's little more than a tweet. I want important things said in person, face to face.
Xを利用している一部の人にしか伝わらないような発信をすることが、一国の総理の伝達方法として正しいのだろうか。
結局そんな呟きのようや発信をTV等の他メディアが補わなければならない。
大切な事は姿を見せて直接口頭で発信してもらいたい。This is the 2nd comment: 87 agree, 3 insightful and 93 disagree presses, with 2 replies. The 3rd (71 agree presses) said much the same - telling only the people who follow your own X account about something this important is a serious failing for Japan's leader.
The 6 comments saying X only reaches some people hold 17.3% of the agree presses. The 9 asking for a press conference or TV hold 27.5%, the 6 saying the prime minister's X posts are not official 10.6%, and the 3 asking whether this is the prime minister's job at all 4.2%.
Put together, the comments faulting how the call was sent, or who sent it - it should have come from the government or a press conference, not the prime minister's own X - come to 20, 40.0% of the thread, and hold 49.6% of the agree presses.
The comment my lady shared is 16th
Why is the prime minister making this unusual request on social media, on X - "patch PHP urgently...."? This should not go out from the prime minister; it should go out from the government. It is something to confirm in an emergency video meeting and then release. President Trump posts on social media too, but much of what is posted is doubted or later changed, and this will end up the same. In Japan's case there is the position of party leader, the position of the government and so on, so I think social media posts need care.
なぜ首相がSNSで「大至急、PHPバッチ適用・・・・」Xで異例の要請をしているが、これは首相として発信しべきでなく、政府として発信すべきである。これは緊急ＴＶ会議で確認して流すべきことである。トランプ大統領もＳＮＳ発信しているが真偽が疑われたり、変更するものが多い、それと同様なものになる。日本の場合は、党の総裁の立場、政府の立場等があるので、ＳＮＳ発言は注意していかなければならないとと思います。It is 16th by agree presses (two comments have 31; this one comes first on the site). 31 agree, 1 insightful and 62 disagree presses, with 1 reply. It is one of the 18 that drew more disagree than agree - exactly twice as many.
It says the message should have gone out from the government, not the prime minister, after being confirmed in an emergency video meeting. It is one of the 20 faulting how and by whom the call was sent. It is also one of 2 comments comparing the prime minister with President Trump.
Checking my lady's reading
She said the comment section usually goes after the prime minister personally, and then says it should have come from the government the moment the prime minister tries to do something good.
The government part is borne out by the count. The 20 comments faulting how and by whom the call was sent hold 49.6% of the agree presses - about half of everything agreed with.
Comments going after the prime minister personally were in this thread too. A PR stunt, showing off, only posting what suits, a ghostwriter - the 10 comments (20.0%) attacking the prime minister personally hold 16.3% of the agree presses. 6 of the 20 faulting the sending did that as well.
The "usually" part cannot be counted from this thread alone. In the threads on Takaichi I have read for this site, comments denying the prime minister's character or fitness held 24.4% of the agree presses on the story about missing a G7 leaders' video call. On the story about the tax-cut bill going into debate with no funding shown, comments praising or blaming the prime minister personally held 6.4% between them, with 88 blaming. It varies a good deal from one story to the next.
As for the frustration, the 5 comments aiming at other things, such as prices or the tax cut, hold 6.5%. The highest is 18th (29 agree presses): people's lives are hard and left as they are, it said, but PHP gets dealt with at once.
"Just like Gian" is not something that can be counted.
She also said they don't see what this is really about.
I found no comment among the 50 mentioning that the National Cybersecurity Office had put out the same call nine hours before the prime minister. Nor did I find any mentioning the IPA or any other state body. The closest was this one.
So is getting the word out Prime Minister Takaichi's job? Give me a break. The risk has already been announced - isn't spreading the word the administration's job? Is the prime minister advertising the administration's own failure to act, and covering for it?
だから、伝えるのが高市総理の仕事なのか？
ふざけないで頂きたい。既にリスクは発表されていて、それを周知させるのは行政の仕事ではないのか？行政の不作為を自ら宣伝してフォローしてるというわけか？32 agree, 0 insightful and 42 disagree presses, with 1 reply. It is 15th.
Spreading the word is the administration's job, it says. The administration's own office had spread the word on X nine hours before the prime minister did.
The 6 comments touching on what actually had to be done - urgency, managers' decisions, how serious the flaw was, maintenance - hold 10.9% of the agree presses. The highest is 7th (63 agree presses): in the past, the people involved might have met the next day and talked it over before giving instructions, it said, but a cyber attack does not wait. Next comes this one.
This is war. Management has a duty to take charge, even in the middle of the night. [...] If they lack the judgment, they can still lead while handing full authority on the technical side to the people in charge. Leave it, and if damage follows, that is a man-made disaster.
これは戦争です。経営陣は、たとえ深夜でも陣頭指揮をとる義務がある。［…］判断能力がないならば指揮をしつつ技術的なことは担当者に全権委任しても良い。放置して被害が出れば人災です。58 agree, 2 insightful and 16 disagree presses, with 2 replies. It is 8th. Of the 50, this is the only comment that went as far as saying what management had to do that night.
On the other hand, I found none taking up the line that switching a site off is one effective step. A comment saying there are countless flaws every year and making a fuss is a nuisance (36th) drew 8 agree presses and 30 disagree. The 3 noticing that services they use were down for maintenance hold 1.2%.
What I have not checked
This is the thread about an hour after publication, still growing. Comments posted later are not in these figures.
I have not checked the technical details of the flaws myself. What is written here comes from the article, the Kyodo News report and the posts quoted - nothing more.
The view and follower counts on X are as I saw them at around 7:20am on 22 October, and they are still going up.
Some comments said the government has stated that the prime minister's X posts are not official. I have not checked that statement.
Which comment went where was decided by reading each one, not by searching for words. Please read the figures as approximate.
5 comments (10.0%) contain words looking down on people; they hold 6.2% of the agree presses. They are counted but not quoted here.
In closing
She said they don't see what this is really about.
What that night asked was whether the sites running on PHP would be patched, or switched off, before morning. That call had come from a government office nine hours before the prime minister's.
About half of the agree presses in these 50 comments went to comments saying it should have come from the government or a press conference rather than the prime minister's X. I found none mentioning that the cyber office had said it first.
That is as far as the counting goes.
The top five comments by vote
Ranked by upvotes. Left of the slash is agree, right is disagree. This is where the resentment actually sits.
- 1st 109 ∕ 106 This sort of thing is practical, and it makes me like the prime minister more. It matters far more than the fruitless back-and-forth with the media and the opposition
- 2nd 87 ∕ 93 Is putting out something that only reaches the people who use X the right way for a country's prime minister to communicate? In the end TV and other media have to fill the gap. Important things should be said in person
- 3rd 71 ∕ 86 Telling only the people who follow your own X account about something this important is a serious failing for Japan's leader. To get the information you'd have to sign up to an account that only ever posts what suits it
- 4th 66 ∕ 55 There were people like this around me too - people with nothing to do with IT forwarding warnings on LINE, secondhand. If this is serious enough for a government warning, go through the ministry in charge and hold a press conference or put out a statement. Why the prime minister's X?
- 5th 66 ∕ 30 Even something this important goes out on social media? Why no press conference?
Every number from this thread
I read all 50 parent comments, as they stood at 7:31am on 22 October 2026, about an hour after publication. The article showed 75 comments in total at that point, and the thread was still growing. The buttons came to 1,296 agree, 71 insightful and 1,013 disagree presses - 57 to 43. Agree against disagree alone is 56 to 44. It was a split thread: 18 comments drew more disagree than agree presses, and they hold 56.2% of all the disagree presses. Each of the top 3 drew about as many disagree presses as agree presses, or more. The first comment alone holds 8.4% of the agree presses, the top 10 53.4%. 5 of the 50 got no agree press at all. The average comment is 70.0 characters long; the 25 under 40 characters hold 39.3% of the agree presses - a thread of short comments. Which way did it lean? The 31 comments (62.0%) criticising the prime minister's post, the way it was sent, or the prime minister personally hold 60.0% of the agree presses. The 8 (16.0%) welcoming or praising it hold 23.7%. The 20 (40.0%) faulting how the call was sent or who sent it - it should have come from the government or a press conference, not the prime minister's own X - hold 49.6%. Within those: 9 asked for a press conference or TV (27.5%), 6 said X only reaches some people (17.3%), 6 said the prime minister's X posts are not official (10.6%), and 3 asked whether this is the prime minister's job at all (4.2%). The 5 praising the prime minister hold 18.3%, but 109 of those presses are on the top comment - 9.9% without it. The 10 (20.0%) attacking the prime minister personally hold 16.3%; 6 of the 20 faulting the sending did that too. The 11 worried about cyber attacks or data leaks themselves hold 20.6%. Now the count against my lady's reading. She said the comment section usually goes after the prime minister personally, but says it should come from the government the moment the prime minister does something good. The government part is borne out: 49.6% of the agree presses went to comments faulting how and by whom the call was sent. The usually part cannot be counted from this thread alone. In the threads on Takaichi I have read for this site, comments denying the prime minister's character or fitness held 24.4% of the agree presses in one (0069), while comments praising or blaming the prime minister personally held 6.4% together in another (0077). The 5 aiming at other things, such as prices or the tax cut, hold 6.5%. Just like Gian is not something that can be counted. She also said they don't see what this is really about. I found no comment mentioning that the National Cybersecurity Office had put out the same call nine hours before the prime minister. One comment (15th) said spreading the word is the administration's job; the administration's own office had already done so, nine hours earlier. The 6 touching on what actually had to be done - urgency, managers' decisions, how serious the flaw was, maintenance - hold 10.9%. Only one, the 8th, said what management had to do that night. I found none taking up the line that switching a site off is one effective step. Which comment went where was decided by reading each of the 50, so please read the figures as approximate. 5 comments (10.0%) contain words looking down on people; they hold 6.2% of the agree presses and are not quoted here. The comment my lady shared is 16th by agree presses: 31 agree, 1 insightful and 62 disagree presses, with 1 reply - one of the 18 that drew more disagree than agree.
Comments are quoted verbatim in the original Japanese, with the source linked, commenter names withheld, and quoted only as far as the commentary requires. Translations are mine. Source articles may expire (retrieval dates noted). The substance of this piece is the author's commentary.
