[gimp-web] Adding a small example of bad technical choice by third-party packagers.

[Jehan <jehanp src gnome org>]

commit 3755769201a12746bf98bfe64891d1e867d232f0
Author: Jehan <jehan girinstud io>
Date:   Sat Jun 18 15:05:23 2022 +0200

    Adding a small example of bad technical choice by third-party packagers.
    
    As proposed by pippin on IRC yesterday, adding this bad experience we
    had with one of the unaffiliated packagers as an example. This was
    clearly one of the worst case we had because of all the security and
    data leaking problems, all this done while using our software name and
    reputation (and in the same time, dirtying these as people realized
    problems and thought we were responsible).

 content/news/2022/2022-06_GIMP-2.10.32_on_Microsoft_Store/index.md | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
---
diff --git a/content/news/2022/2022-06_GIMP-2.10.32_on_Microsoft_Store/index.md 
b/content/news/2022/2022-06_GIMP-2.10.32_on_Microsoft_Store/index.md
index f57e8c24..ab008347 100644
--- a/content/news/2022/2022-06_GIMP-2.10.32_on_Microsoft_Store/index.md
+++ b/content/news/2022/2022-06_GIMP-2.10.32_on_Microsoft_Store/index.md
@@ -37,7 +37,9 @@ people bundling GIMP with malicious code, such as computer viruses or
 other malware.
 
 Less severely, we saw cases where GIMP is provided with technical
-issues and our project gets a bad image from other people's misdoings.
+issues (among weirdest cases was some "app" running GIMP through
+unprotected remote servers and leaking user data! 😱) and our project
+gets a bad image from other people's misdoings.
 
 Or again some third-party packagers used confusing wording making it
 sound like they are the developers. People paying, believing they