There was a lot of discussion around it and I shared the same feedback before writing the gist. I’d guess that was about 2 years ago by now – it got lost in the mix, I guess.
Yes, it can be improved – the gist shows a couple of cosmetic improvements, for example. I played with it in a mocked-up plugin and didn’t care for the implementation. IIRC, the docs were also on the slim side. The effect of removing the page would be little-to-none, I suspect. Probably the main issue was that there was a lot of discussion, but, there was never any developer buy-in. In the end, it was sort of, “Here’s the security page. You can use it if you want.” I spoke to the developer (who created the page) about this long after the fact and he agreed that the stakeholder buy-in wasn’t present.
Every security (specific) plugin has a ton of screens. Should all these screens be injected into the security page and sub-navigated via the designers idea of how to lay it out? Is there a sub-page mechanism to make it look native? What about other plugins that inject a setting or two – how should these be presented? What about a plugin that does something similar to another plugin (security-wise) – in the security page, they are not likely to be grouped in any meaningful way. These are a few questions that arose when I played with it. Virtually every plugin author has a certain design aesthetic by which they lay out their screens/data – if all these styles reach the security page, it will be a mess.
Yes, it’s all core stuff. What it isn’t is consistent in this interface. Plugins that do it right use a text-link in this interface, not an icon, logo, or graphic. Core using an icon here is inconsistent with the current display and sets a bad precedent that others will most definitely abuse. I can think of at least one CP plugin that already defaces this area with notices and marketing. Anyway, the icon was also poorly placed, had a needless divider that was overlooked, and an icon is less translatable than plain text.