←back to thread

1124 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 #
gnfargbl ◴[] 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 #
Y-bar ◴[] No.45894491[source]
> They could, but there is really no requirement on them to do so.

I see this sort of sentiment daily. The sentiment that only what is strictly legal or required is what matters.

Sometimes, you know, you have to recognise that there are social norms and being a good person matters and has intrinsic value. A society only governed by what the written law of the land explicitly states is a dystopia worse than hell.

replies(3): >>45895220 #>>45897112 #>>45898268 #
gnfargbl ◴[] No.45898268[source]
You're correct, but it's the social norms -- or at least, the norms as I perceive them -- that I am talking about here.

If you find yourself with potentially serious security bugs in your repo, then the social norm should be for you to take ownership of that because, well, it's your repo.

The socially unacceptable activity here should be treating security issues as an irritation, or a problem outside your control. If you're a maintainer, and you find yourself overwhelmed by genuine CVE reports, then it might be worth reflecting on the root cause of that. What ffmpeg did here was to shoot the messenger, which is non-normative.

replies(1): >>45899546 #
Y-bar ◴[] No.45899546{3}[source]
It seems to me that they are not treating the security issue as an irritation, but instead the manner at which it was presented to them that is the problem.
replies(1): >>45903964 #
1. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.45903964{4}[source]
What about the presentation was wrong? What is the correct presentation for a pure bug report?