Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that _Design Patterns_ has little to do with security, but I think you are being a bit hard on it from a programming perspective. Certainly the book is tremendously useful for ObjC programmers because Apple incorporated most of these patterns into Cocoa and Cocoa Touch. And as someone who has done code review with junior Android developers, I wish that more devs read it. When a security researcher refers to a…
(To save you some explaining time:) I'm excruciatingly familiar with the GoF patterns and much of the broader pattern movement (I'm a recovering C++ programmer). So: Of the original GoF patterns, which specific ones make it easier to discuss SQL injection?
That doesn't seem to be the claim made in the parent comment. I read it as a far weaker, "In much the same way that security researchers label antipatterns that enable attacks and that makes it easier to talk about security, the GOF label patterns that make it easier to talk about design."
I don't know that the parent comment makes a good case for relevance of this claim, though, since - as you've been more focused on - this list is supposed to be more specifically for (FTA) "topics within computer security, digital forensics, incident response, malware analysis, and reverse engineering." I suppose if the system you're reverse engineering made substantial use of GoF design patterns, familiarity with them would probably help, but that seems a little bit of a stretch.