Missed the original. That seems like a reasonable way to highlight software that you believe is fundamentally insecure. Obviously you can't be on the hook to fix deep architectural issues yourself, but just submitting a single PR will be treated as "problem solved". Since most of any software contains some vulnerability, just saying "this software has an RCE" isn't actually a disclosure at all. The real issue is that the given vulnerability was (supposedly) easy to find, which if true is not something that will be fixed by targeting just that exploit chain, and needs deep changes to fix.
I get the criticism but also I don't get the criticism.
Thank fuck that someone found this bug and let them and the rest of us about it so we can protect ourselves. My forgejo instance was already running on my tailnet with no public exposure but had been considering public disclosure of it for some collaborators.
There has been a lot of talk around forgejo as an alternative to github for months now. To now understand that their security posture seems to be, 'like, yaknow, whatever...' is disturbing.
I think both parties can take this opportunity to mature. I understand that Forgejo is a community project, but community projects should have standards or very explicit disclaimers when it comes to security.
The growing popularity of the project + an increase of AI-powered security enthusiasts submitting random bugs has created a HUGE backlog for the Foregejo security team.
Instead of acting like this, the author should offer to help the project.
(From one of the toots) > That said, I do not believe humiliation is the ultimate goal of the contributor here, nor venting a frustration. The ideal outcome is probably to acknowledge the risk, reduce the interpersonal heat
I think that’s a very charitable interpretation, and that’s a good attitude in general. In this case though, given that this ended up with all toots and tweets about it, I would suspect notoriety and internet points are at the top of the list of at least some parties here…
9 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 33.1 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47941590
Thank fuck that someone found this bug and let them and the rest of us about it so we can protect ourselves. My forgejo instance was already running on my tailnet with no public exposure but had been considering public disclosure of it for some collaborators.
There has been a lot of talk around forgejo as an alternative to github for months now. To now understand that their security posture seems to be, 'like, yaknow, whatever...' is disturbing.
I think both parties can take this opportunity to mature. I understand that Forgejo is a community project, but community projects should have standards or very explicit disclaimers when it comes to security.
Instead of acting like this, the author should offer to help the project.
I think that’s a very charitable interpretation, and that’s a good attitude in general. In this case though, given that this ended up with all toots and tweets about it, I would suspect notoriety and internet points are at the top of the list of at least some parties here…