←back to thread

1124 points CrankyBear | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
woodruffw ◴[] No.45891521[source]
I’m an open source maintainer, so I empathize with the sentiment that large companies appear to produce labor for unpaid maintainers by disclosing security issues. But appearance is operative: a security issue is something that I (as the maintainer) would need to fix regardless of who reports it, or would otherwise need to accept the reputational hit that comes with not triaging security reports. That’s sometimes perfectly fine (it’s okay for projects to decide that security isn’t a priority!), but you can’t have it both ways.
replies(13): >>45891613 #>>45891749 #>>45891930 #>>45892032 #>>45892263 #>>45892941 #>>45892989 #>>45894805 #>>45896179 #>>45897077 #>>45897316 #>>45898926 #>>45900786 #
Msurrow ◴[] No.45891613[source]
My takeaway from the article was not that the report was a problem, but a change in approach from Google that they’d disclose publicly after X days, regardless of if the project had a chance to fix it.

To me its okay to “demand” from a for profit company (eg google) to fix an issue fast. Because they have ressources. But to “demand” that an oss project fix something with a certain (possibly tight) timeframe.. well I’m sure you better than me, that that’s not who volunteering works

replies(5): >>45891699 #>>45891755 #>>45891844 #>>45893088 #>>45898343 #
vadansky ◴[] No.45891699[source]
On the other hand as an ffmpeg user do you care? Are you okay not being told a tool you're using has a vulnerability in it because the devs don't have time to fix it? I mean someone could already be using the vulnerability regardless of what Google does.
replies(9): >>45891756 #>>45891762 #>>45891975 #>>45892022 #>>45892359 #>>45892632 #>>45893251 #>>45895054 #>>45900572 #
afiori ◴[] No.45891975[source]
This is a fantastic argument for the universe where Google does not disclose vulnerability until the maintainers had had reasonable time to fix it.

In this world the user is left vulnerable because attackers can use published vulnerabilities that the maintainers are to overwhelmed to fix

replies(3): >>45892177 #>>45892296 #>>45896986 #
esrauch ◴[] No.45892177[source]
This program discloses security issues to the projects and only discloses them after they have had a "reasonable" chance to fix it though, and projects can request extensions before disclosure if projects plan to fix it but need more time.

Google runs this security program even on libraries they do not use at all, where it's not a demand, it's just whitehat security auditing. I don't see the meaningful difference between Google doing it and some guy with a blog doing it here.

replies(1): >>45893357 #
XorNot ◴[] No.45893357[source]
Google is a multi-billion dollar company, which is paying people to find these bugs in the first place.

That's a pretty core difference.

replies(2): >>45895309 #>>45895376 #
tpmoney ◴[] No.45895376[source]
Great, so Google is actively spending money on making open source projects better and more secure. And for some reason everyone is now mad at them for it because they didn't also spend additional money making patches themselves. We can absolutely wish and ask that they spend some money and resources on making those patches, but this whole thing feels like the message most corporations are going to take is "don't do anything to contribute to open source projects at all, because if you don't do it just right, they're going to drag you through the mud for it" rather than "submit more patches"
replies(3): >>45895606 #>>45897362 #>>45897419 #
khannn ◴[] No.45895606[source]
They're actively making open source projects less secure by publishing bugs that the projects don't have the volunteers to fix

I saw another poster say something about "buggy software". All software is buggy.

replies(2): >>45895793 #>>45896004 #
saagarjha ◴[] No.45895793{3}[source]
Publishing bugs that the project has so that they can be fixed is actively making the project more secure. How is someone going to do anything about it if Google didn’t do the research?
replies(1): >>45895868 #
khannn ◴[] No.45895868{4}[source]
Did you see how the FFMPEG project patched a bug for a 1995 console? That's not a good use for the limited amount of volunteers on the project. It actively makes it less secure by taking away from more pertinent bugs.
replies(3): >>45896001 #>>45896653 #>>45898207 #
saagarjha ◴[] No.45896001{5}[source]
Then they should mark it as low priority and put it in their backlog. I trust that the maintainers are good judges of what deserves their time.
replies(1): >>45897111 #
1. XorNot ◴[] No.45897111{6}[source]
Publicizing vulnerabilities is the problem though. Google is ensuring obscure or unknown vulnerabilities will now be very well known and very public.

This is significant when they represent one of the few entities on the planet likely able to find bugs at that scale due to their wealth.

So funding a swarm of bug reports, for software they benefit from, using a scale of resources not commonly available, while not contributing fixes and instead demanding timelines for disclosure, seems a lot more like they'd just like to drive people out of open source.

replies(1): >>45898444 #
2. saagarjha ◴[] No.45898444[source]
I think most people learned about this bug from FFmpeg's actions, not Google's. Also, you are underestimating adversaries: Google spends quite a bit of money on this, but not a lot given their revenue, because their primary purpose is not finding security bugs. There are entities that are smaller than Google but derive almost all their money from finding exploits. Their results are broadly comparable but they are only publicized when they mess up.