XZ Utils backdoor
tukaani.org

They haven’t particularly made a comment on the situation so much as acknowledged it’s happening. They seem to be going with the story that they had nothing to do with it and this is news to them. Hope to hear more from them soon so we can find out more about the situation, how and why this happened, etc.

(The sceptical tone isn’t because of disbelief of Collin, it’s because we don’t know enough about the situation to be able to say Collin is or isn’t telling the truth here.)

  • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
    2·
    7 months ago

    Damn. The amount of unpaid work for something so crucial to todays communication is staggering. I always make sure to pass parts if the donations I receive (not a lot) upstream.

    I have the horrible feeling that very few people who use FOSS software and could actually donate some money at least dont do this. Do we have any numbers for this?

    • eveninghere@beehaw.org
      1·
      7 months ago

      I am starting to believe that we shouldn’t rely on this type of labor product in the first place. Something as critical as OpenSSH should be (and possibly is) funded by the users and also NOT use third party libs because it’s dangerous, as this incidence showed. FOSS is free not as in beer.

      • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
        0·
        7 months ago

        I‘m not sure what you‘re suggesting. Every piece of FOSS software is made by someone and the a lot of it builds on top of some upstream thing. Otherwise everyone would have to rebuild from scratch and FOSS would break down. Or am I missing your point?

        Also, you cant make every 16 yr old user pay for a foss product. Companies must be made to pay for foss and downstream teams must be made to send parts of their income upstream, no matter if they make enough.

          • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
            0·
            7 months ago

            Mate, we are discussing on two different threads. Chill out. Maybe I didnt get your point so feel free to elaborate or leave it. Your choice.

            • eveninghere@beehaw.org
              0·
              7 months ago

              Yes. I simply think I already wrote what I needed to. The answer to your question is there. I guess it takes time to see my point.

              • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
                0·
                7 months ago

                You only said 2 things:

                • we shouldn’t rely on free software made by free labor, and we need to say goodbye to some 60-70% or more of the software we use
                • important software shouldn’t reuse code already made, they should reinvent the wheel and in the process introduce unique vulnerabilities and spend orders of magnitude more time doing that

                None of these make sense in my opinion

                • abbenm@lemmy.ml
                  0·
                  7 months ago

                  we shouldn’t rely on free software made by free labor, and we need to say goodbye to some 60-70% or more of the software we use

                  Again I’m just reading along, and as a person who cares about, you know, the principle of charity, I don’t see how you can possibly think that’s the most charitable interpretation of what they said. I took them to mean we should do what we can to ensure these projects have financial resources to continue, not that we should “say goodbye” to them.

                  And here’s the crazy thing: I’m not even saying I agree. I just think it’s possible to address a face value version of what they’re talking about without taking unnecessary cheap shots.

                  • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
                    1·
                    7 months ago

                    I took them to mean we should do what we can to ensure these projects have financial resources to continue, not that we should “say goodbye” to them.

                    They have said this:

                    Something as critical as OpenSSH should be (and possibly is) funded by the users and also NOT use third party libs because it’s dangerous, as this incidence showed.

                    Emphasis mine.

                  • Christian@lemmy.mlEnglish
                    1·
                    7 months ago

                    But being charitable to the person you’re responding to, they twice said explicitly that they didn’t understand what was being said and asked for elaboration and both times got a reply that more or less suggested that they didn’t understand because they’re illiterate. At some point the reaction becomes understandable.

                    edit: different poster from the first two, but I think they were sympathizing with the other person

            • abbenm@lemmy.ml
              0·
              7 months ago

              Mate, we are discussing on two different threads. Chill out. Maybe I didnt get your point so feel free to elaborate or leave it.

              I think it would be really good if all of us on the internet agreed to a rule, which is that if you mischaracterize someone or misread them, it’s not that weird for them to want you to not do that. So I don’t think it’s fair to response to a comment correctly noting they are being mischaractized by going out of your way to try and make it about their emotions/mental state.