←back to thread

FFmpeg to Google: Fund us or stop sending bugs

(thenewstack.io)
1124 points CrankyBear | 1 comments | 11 Nov 25 18:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
pjmlp ◴[11 Nov 25 19:43 UTC] No.45891849[source]▶
Fully on FFmpeg team side, many companies approach to FOSS is only doing so when it sounds good on their marketing karma, leech otherwise.

Most of them would just pirate in the old days, and most FOSS licences give them clear conscience to behave as always.

replies(2): >>45892276 #>>45892516 #
iscoelho ◴[11 Nov 25 20:39 UTC] No.45892516[source]▶
Google is, at no cost to FFMPEG:

1) dedicating compute resources to continuously fuzzing the entire project

2) dedicating engineering resources to validating the results and creating accurate and well-informed bug reports (in this case, a seriously underestimated security issue)

3) additionally for codecs that Google likely does not even internally use or compile, purely for the greater good of FFMPEG's user base

Needless to say, while I agree Google has a penny to spare to fund FFMPEG, and should (although they already contribute), I do not agree with funding this maintainer.

replies(3): >>45892589 #>>45892848 #>>45895277 #
pjmlp ◴[11 Nov 25 20:47 UTC] No.45892589[source]▶
Then they can surely also provide a pull request for said CVE.
replies(2): >>45892622 #>>45893197 #
gnfargbl ◴[11 Nov 25 21:34 UTC] No.45893197[source]▶
They could, but there is really no requirement on them to do so. The security flaw was discovered by Google, but it was not created by them.

Equally there is no requirement on ffmpeg to fix these CVEs nor any other.

And, of course, there is no requirement on end-users to run software from projects which do not consider untrusted-input-validation bugs to be high priority.

replies(2): >>45893464 #>>45894491 #
1. lenerdenator ◴[11 Nov 25 21:58 UTC] No.45893464[source]▶
> And, of course, there is no requirement on end-users to run software from projects which do not consider untrusted-input-validation bugs to be high priority.

What's this even saying?

Then they're free to fork it and never use the upstream again.