As mentioned in the article, every bug is potentially a security problem to someone.
If you know that something is a security issue to your organization, you definitely don't want to paint a target on your back by reporting the bug publicly with an email address <your_name>@<your_org>.com. In the end, it is really actually quite rare (given the size of the code base and the popularity of linux) that a bug has a very wide security impact.
The vast majority of security issues don't affect organizations that are serious about security (yes really, SELinux eliminates or seriously reduces the impact of the vast majority of security bugs).
The problem with that argument is that the reports don’t necessarily come from the organization for whom it’s an issue. Security researchers unaffiliated not impacted by any such issue still report it this way (eg Project Zero reporting issues that don’t impact Google at all).
Also Android uses SELinux and still has lots of kernel exploits. Believing SELinux solves the vast majority of security issues is fallacious, especially since it’s primarily about securing userspace, not the kernel itself .
> The problem with that argument is that the reports don’t necessarily come from the organization for whom it’s an issue.
You can already say that for the majority of the bugs being fixed, and I think that's one of the points: tagging certain bugs as exploitable make it seem like the others aren't.
More generally, someone's minor issue might be a major one for someone else, and not just in security. It could be anything the user cares about, data, hardware, energy, time.
Perhaps the real problem is that security is just a view on the bigger picture. Security is important, I'm not saying the opposite, but if it's only an aspect of development, why focus on it in the development logs? Shouldn't it be instead discussed on its own, in separate documents, mailing lists, etc by those who are primarily concerned by it?
Are memory leak fixes described as memory leak fixes in the logs or intentionally omitted as such? Are kernel panics or hangs not described in the commit logs even if they only happen in weird scenarios? Thats clearly not what’s happening meaning security bugs are still differently recorded and described through omission.
However you look at it, the only real justification that’s consistent with observed behaviors is that pointing out security vulnerabilities in the development log helps attackers. That explains why known exploitable bugs are reported differently before hand and described differently after the fact in the commit logs. That wouldn’t happen if “a bug is a bug” was actually a genuinely held position.
> However you look at it, the only real justification that’s consistent with observed behaviors is that pointing out security vulnerabilities in the development log helps attackers.
And on top of your other concerns, this quoted bit smells an awful lot like 'security through obscurity' to me.
The people we really need to worry about today, state actors, have plenty of manpower available to watch every commit going into the kernel and figure out which ones are correcting an exploitable flaw, and how; and they also have the resources to move quickly to take advantage of them before downstream distros finish their testing and integration of upstream changes into their kernels, and before responsible organizations finish their regression testing and let the kernel updates into their deployments -- especially given that the distro maintainers and sysadmins aren't going to be moving with any urgency to get a kernel containing a security-critical fix rolled out quickly because they don't know they need to because *nobody's warned them*.
Obscuring how fixes are impactful to security isn't a step to avoid helping the bad guys, because they don't need the help. Being loud and clear about them is to help the good guys; to allow them to fast-track (or even skip) testing and deploying fixes or to take more immediate mitigations like disabling vulnerable features pending tested fix rollouts.
There are channels in place to discuss security matters in open source. I am by no mean an expert nor very interested in that topic, but just searching a bit led me to
There’s lot of different kinds of bad guys. This probably has marginal impact on state actors. But organized crime or malicious individuals? Probably raises the bar a little bit and part of defense in depth is employing a collection of mitigations to increase the cost of creating an exploit.
> Are memory leak fixes described as memory leak fixes in the logs or intentionally omitted as such? Are kernel panics or hangs not described in the commit logs even if they only happen in weird scenarios?
I don't know nor follow kernel development well enough to answer these questions. My point was just a general reflection, and admittedly a reformulation of Linus's argument, which I think is genuinely valid.
If you allow me, one could frame this differently though: is the memory leak the symptom or the problem?
Indeed nobody does that, because it would just be pointless, it doesn't expose the real issue. Is a security vulnerability a symptom, or the real issue though? Doesn't it depends on the purpose of the code containing the bug?
What's the process for initiation into the "west" these days? Colonizing someone else's territory and sweeping it under the rug as brazenly as possible? It certainly isn't freedom of expression or respect for the rule of law.
We've banned this account for using HN exclusively for political/ideological/nationalistic battle, as well as for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop.
> You won't find many historical examples of fascists being booted out by the people.
Every fascist regime that has ever existed has been ousted by war, revolution, or the vote. There are no fascist regimes left, unless you expand the definition of the term to mean “any authoritarian regime,” in which case there are plenty of historical examples of popular revolt.
> The only successful revolutions are piloted by a small elite with further interests that may not coincide with the people.
Authoritarian regimes very rarely get reverted if they aren't external powers ruling a separate group. Can you give some examples where it happened? I don't know of any that lasted very long.
As I mentioned in a comment below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46297617 ), Firefox does not rely only on sponsors. There are a few ways to pay money that goes directly towards Firefox.
That link is for Mozilla Foundation, which is a non-profit and donations to it do not go to the development of Firefox. Mozilla Corporation, the for-profit entity, owns and manages Firefox. The way to support Firefox monetarily is by buying Mozilla VPN where available (this is Mullvad in the backend) and buying some Firefox merchandise (like stickers, t-shirts, etc.). I think an MDN Plus subscription also helps.
I agree it's counter-evidence right now, and I think there has been a way to donate for a long time now (just to "mozilla", not "firefox" or setting any restrictions), but I'm not sure what the historical option has been...
That seems reasonable, but they seem to be suffering their own problem with UI and UX design by not making that inherently clearer.
I was getting a bit disappointed about Proton based on this evaluation even though the only problem I’ve had is their really lacking client UI/UX. They should make that visualization clearer. I don’t know the answer, but maybe offering a toggle or expansion for virtualized servers, might be a step in the right direction.
The design issues seems to be a common challenge with proton. The VPN client functions, but it is really grating how basic it is. You can’t even sort, let alone filter servers by load, let alone performance; so you’re scrolling through hundreds of servers. You can’t add regions or even several servers to create a profile with a priority, you have to pick a single server, among hundreds if not thousands in some countries. Oh, and as you’re scrolling through hundreds of servers for a single country, it’s a view of something like 10 lines high.
> The unification energy between the graviton and quantum field theory is on the order of 10^19 GeV, over a dozen orders of magnitude beyond anything we can generate.
Of course it’s stupid and it’s never going to work. The same is true for Carbon Capture and Storage, blue hydrogen, etc. It’s nonsense from the start, but it didn’t stop governments around the world to spend billions on it.
It works like this: companies spend a few millions on PR to market a sci-fi project that’s barely plausible. Governments who really want to preserve the status quo but are pressured to “do something” can just announce that they’re sinking billions in it and voila! They’re green, they’re going to save the world.
It's a completely different story in countries with crappy networks (looking at you Philippines), remote areas, or offshore.
reply