that is not what i am looking for.
If you are unaware of them, you just have not been paying attention. Though I rather suspect you are just boorishly making a rhetorical opening.
i know the "accusations", but being an actual vulnerability is something else.
For one, the ability of the miners to revert to the old definition of a segwit tx as its original (some would say true) definition as an anyonecanspend tx.
you use the
wrong term (revert) here whereas you should have said
hard fork. and with that clarification it is not a SegWit-introduced vulnerability, it is a bitcoin vulnerability. miners can hard fork to any new chain they wanted and have the ability to spend any transaction output they want.
i know the words "anyonecanspend" sounds scary but in truth it is just what people are calling the new outputs. if you think miners can just flip a switch and "revert" to anything they want then you should not be trusting bitcoin and any other cryptocurrency that is build based on its technology (litecoin, bitcoin cash, ethereum, ...) at all because miners can "revert" to anything they want. they can revert to prior P2SH and spend any output with a script in it, they can make 0x6a (OP_Return) outputs spendable and a lot more.
but in reality it won't happen, simply because when hard forking you need people to follow your fork otherwise it will be an altcoin. who would follow a chain that made their money spendable by others?