←back to thread

1124 points CrankyBear | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
codeptualize ◴[] No.45899356[source]
I think the glaring issue underlying this is that the big companies are not investing enough in the tools they rely on.

I agree with some of the arguments that patching up vulnerabilities is important, but it's crazy to put that expectation on unpaid volunteers when you flood them with CVE's some completely irrelevant.

Also the solution is fairly simple: Either, you submit a PR instead of an issue. Or, you send a generous donation with the issue to reward and motivate the people who do the work.

The amount of revenue they generate using these packages will easily offset the cost of funding the projects, so I really think it's a fair expectation for companies to contribute either by delivering work or funds.

replies(1): >>45899651 #
Propelloni ◴[] No.45899651[source]
The solution is even simpler. The project puts the bug report in its triage backlog. It works through it in its own time, and decides on severity and priority. That's the time-honored method.

The compounding factor here is the automated reporting and disclosure process of Google's Project Zero. GPZ automatically discloses bugs after 90 days. Even if Google does not expect bugs to be fixed within this period, the FFmpeg devs clearly feel pressure.

But it is an open source project, basically a hobby for most devs. Why accept pressure at all? Continue to proceed in the time-honored method. If and when Youtube explodes because of a FFmpeg bug, Google has only itself to blame. They could have done something but decided to freeload.

I really don't see the issue.

replies(1): >>45901899 #
1. amelius ◴[] No.45901899[source]
Is it legal to disclose security vulnerabilities within such a short period?

It certainly does not seem ethically correct.