←back to thread

278 points jwilk | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.201s | source
Show context
arp242 ◴[] No.44382233[source]
A lot of these "security bugs" are not really "security bugs" in the first place. Denial of service is not resulting in people's bank accounts being emptied or nude selfies being spread all over the internet.

Things like "panics on certain content" like [1] or [2] are "security bugs" now. By that standard anything that fixes a potential panic is a "security bug". I've probably fixed hundreds if not thousands of "security bugs" in my career by that standard.

Barely qualifies as a "security bug" yet it's rated as "6.2 Moderate" and "7.5 HIGH". To say nothing of gazillion "high severity" "regular expression DoS" nonsense and whatnot.

And the worst part is all of this makes it so much harder to find actual high-severity issues. It's not harmless spam.

[1]: https://github.com/gomarkdown/markdown/security/advisories/G...

[2]: https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2024-0373.html

replies(13): >>44382268 #>>44382299 #>>44382855 #>>44384066 #>>44384368 #>>44384421 #>>44384513 #>>44384791 #>>44385347 #>>44385556 #>>44389612 #>>44390124 #>>44390292 #
1. dcow ◴[] No.44384066[source]
Full disclosure is the only fair and humane way to handle “security” bugs, because as you point out, every bug is a security bug to someone. And adversaries will make their way onto embargo lists anyway. It’s good to see a principled maintainer other than openbsd fighting the fight.