←back to thread

659 points jolux | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
drbragg ◴[] No.45300936[source]
Ruby Central's whole thing is they maintain, develop, and secure bundler and ruby gems. Marty was previously a lead at Ruby Central and recently came back to RC as their Open Source Lead. It sounds like there was a clusterfuck getting the repo switched over but I'm not seeing how this is an attack on Ruby gems. Am I missing something?
replies(2): >>45300982 #>>45301089 #
woodruffw ◴[] No.45301089[source]
I think the missing piece here is that almost every person publicly involved with RubyGems’ development has left the project in recent weeks. I don’t have any special insight here, but from an outsider’s perspective it seems as through Ruby Central is trying to turn a former “host” relationship into a “control” relationship.
replies(2): >>45301469 #>>45302506 #
nevinera ◴[] No.45301469[source]
I think you're right, but I suspect the root here is one of legal liability - if rubycentral is operating as a nonprofit that hosts _a recurring attack vector on other companies_, they'll have legal obligations to secure that service against those attacks. I assume they are continuously deploying out of that repository, and took the simplest route to controlling the attack vectors?

I'm not sure how anyone familiar with open-source communities would fail to predict the backlash though. They really should have forked the repository and switched the deployments over to their downstream fork (if I'm right about the root cause here).

(I'm mostly thinking in terms of supply-chain attacks, like this one: https://blog.rubygems.org/2025/08/25/rubygems-security-respo...)

replies(2): >>45301909 #>>45302420 #
1. blibble ◴[] No.45302420[source]
there is no contract to assign liability

and I doubt you could ever get negligence to stick, given you are downloading code from some website and running it, on your own accord, entirely unprompted

(but IANAL)