←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 #
WhyNotHugo ◴[] No.45896179[source]
The issue at hand is that Google has a policy of making the security issue public regardless of whether a fix has been produced.

Typically disclosures happen after a fix exists.

replies(1): >>45896723 #
woodruffw ◴[] No.45896723[source]
This isn’t true at all in my experience: disclosures happen on a timeline (60 to 90 days is common), with extensions provided as a courtesy based on remediation complexity and other case-by-case considerations. I’ve been party to plenty of advisories that went public without a fix because the upstream wasn’t interested in providing one.
replies(1): >>45899036 #
1. Orygin ◴[] No.45899036[source]
For OSS projects or commercial ones? I feel it's not the same when one has trillion in market cap and the other has a few unpaid maintainers.
replies(1): >>45899531 #
2. woodruffw ◴[] No.45899531[source]
The norm is the same for both. Perhaps there’s an argument that it should be longer for OSS maintainers, but OSS maintainers also have different levers at their disposal: they can just say “no, I don’t care” because nobody’s paying them. A company can’t do that, at least not without a financial hit.

To my original comment, the underlying problem here IMO is wanting to have it both ways: you can adhere to common notions of security for reputational reasons, or you can exercise your right as a maintainer to say “I don’t care,” but you can’t do both.