←back to thread

1125 points CrankyBear | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pjmlp ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.45892589[source]
Then they can surely also provide a pull request for said CVE.
replies(2): >>45892622 #>>45893197 #
SR2Z ◴[] No.45892622[source]
Where do you draw the line? Do you want Google to just not inspect any projects that it can't fully commit to maintaining?

Providing a real CVE is a contribution, not a burden. The ffmpeg folks can ignore it, since by all indications it's pretty minor.

replies(4): >>45892822 #>>45892859 #>>45893344 #>>45893509 #
angiolillo ◴[] No.45892859{3}[source]
> Providing a real CVE is a contribution, not a burden.

Isn't a real CVE (like any bug report) both a contribution and a burden?

replies(2): >>45893981 #>>45898455 #
1. arcfour ◴[] No.45898455{4}[source]
It's not fair to classify it as a burden; it existed anyways, but now you have the work/issue identified.