Answer by Xander:
No, I do not.
I believe we still have some uncertainty around what questions are appropriate for the site, and this results in some questions being closely incorrectly or at least too quickly. Specifically when questions move out of the realm of the theoretical and into the practical, we have an unfortunate tendency to close with prejudice. As to remediation, I think this is exactly what meta is for, and we as a community and as a moderation team should be leaning on this tool more than we currently do in order to provide additional guidance.
To some extent HackOverflow overlaps with this site, and to some extent it overlaps with ReverseEngineering.SE. I think there's a legitimate place for ReverseEngineering.SE, but for the HackOverflow questions that don't fit there, I think that speaks more to our neglect of some of the practical questions I mentioned earlier than to a need for a new site.
First, I would confer with the rest of the moderation team. My initial desire would be to ping the user to offer corrective guidance, but I would want to make sure that the mod team was on the same page before speaking on behalf of the site.
I would discuss it with them, and let them know how I feel, much as I do in the DMZ now.
No, not on StackExchange or an IT Security site. I do have 15 years professional experience building communities (both the software and the communities that use the software) and working with community managers and management teams.
I try to be careful about closing questions, personally, and vote to leave a fair number open. As I've mentioned in several previous answers, I think more extensive use of our meta site could allow us to offer better guidance to the community on when questions we're currently closing might actually be valuable to the site.
I'm not particularly familiar with chat moderation, and I'm not active in that room, so I would probably just put the room in timeout for a minute (I think mods can do that) to allow the mods who know the room and the users to show up and provide more specifically appropriate guidance.
Well, we know which users have particularly good answers on a particular topic. In some cases it may be as simple as doing a little legwork to reach out to the them, to get them to add canonical answers. In other cases, it may be a good idea to spend the time to aggregate the answers from several different duplicate questions into a community wiki answer on the best question in the vein. In most cases including those about, the answer is that somebody, either a moderator or community member needs to commit to spend the time and energy required to drive the issue to resolution, and time and energy are often the shortest assets in supply in a part-time volunteer community. It might be helpful to be able to flag questions as needing a canonical answer and surface that in a visible and easy to access location, so it can be regularly reviewed and someone could knock one out when the mood strikes.
If the information was sensitive enough, I may temporarily delete the question as requested, but in any case it would be escalated to SE staff to permanently redact the sensitive information from the question as the final solution, while leaving the question materially intact.