> We just want you to know that we would never intentionally hurt the Linux kernel community and never introduce security vulnerabilities. Our work was conducted with the best of intentions and is all about finding and fixing security vulnerabilities.

Either this is a bald-faced lie or they didn't think through the implications of their research, neither of which bode well for their trustworthiness in future. However, if it's the latter, then they possibly deserve additional leeway.

On the other hand, I wonder whether this letter would have eventuated without the ban - if not, then they've likely been forced to write it, in which case any remorse is either selfish (i.e. they've been professionally reprimanded and feel bad about getting caught, or making such an egregious error in judgement), or hollow.

> I agree, but let's give them a little extra benefit of the doubt. I thought as I was reading it that it seemed stilted and forced, then I wondered if the author(s) don't speak / write English as a primary language.

https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/

It looks like you might be right about this, but I think that reading it as stilted and forced is still accurate.

The wording is definitely stilted and forced, but the content is also wrong for an apology. They spend a lot of time justifying their actions, and close with "this has been painful for us too". This may also be cultural, but it's overly self-centered for an apology.