Edit: I hate to remove comments and it may get me banned but due to the hate speech I’m receiving regarding things unrelated to software while trying to sympathize with a frustrated security researcher who got caught up in unnecessary bureaucracy when taken en masse, I’m going to remove these comments for now. This is why we volunteer FOSS engineers have to stay clear of popular projects I guess.
Forgejo has a responsible disclosure policy, but this person seems like they just don’t want to deal with that and instead opted for the nuclear option immediately.
Edit: I hate to remove comments and it may get me banned but due to the hate speech I’m receiving regarding things unrelated to software while trying to sympathize with a frustrated security researcher who got caught up in unnecessary bureaucracy when taken en masse, I’m going to remove these comments for now. This is why we volunteer FOSS engineers have to stay clear of popular projects I guess.
Erm, did you read them? The policies aren’t complex at all, just submit the issue (and proposed fix if there is one) through a secure channel, that they’re happy to help set up. If you want to disclose the vulnerability, just wait until the embargo passes so there’s time to fix and have users update. There’s not really anything else you need to do here. This is pretty standard stuff that this person just seemed too lazy to participate in.
Of the three fixes submitted, only a single one was closed since it didn’t seem very major and would be a breaking change (which shouldn’t be made without prior discussion). The other two are still open, and a maintainer is helping to add tests for the fixes (since the author didn’t add them). The only comment that was somewhat negative was that security fixes should preferably follow the established guidelines. That’s all.
Edit: I hate to remove comments and it may get me banned but due to the hate speech I’m receiving regarding things unrelated to software while trying to sympathize with a frustrated security researcher who got caught up in unnecessary bureaucracy when taken en masse, I’m going to remove these comments for now. This is why we volunteer FOSS engineers have to stay clear of popular projects I guess.
Alternatively, they could have sent the security team an email with the ‘carrot’ and saying “There seems to be fundamental, systemic, security issues in Forgejo; here’s some proof. There’s too much for me to raise individual reports, what are we going to do about it?”
I think there’s pros and cons to everything. That way would have been less of a dickhead move towards the Forgejo developers. But a big letdown to admins as they don’t know what’s up with the software they’re running on their servers. The way the author chose gives some new intelligence to admins, and they can now act on it, since it’s public knowledge. But it’s annoying to the devs.
I guess I as a Forgejo user am kinda greatful they did it this way. Now I got to learn the story and can allocate 2h on the weekend to see if my personal Forgejo container is isolated enough and whether the backups still work.
(But that’s just my opinion after reading one side of the story. Maybe there’s more to the story and they’re being a dick nonetheless…)
Edit: And regarding just dropping the security team an informal mail… I don’t know if that’s clever. You’d normally either follow some security policy, or don’t engage. Sending them other kinds of mails which violate their policy (an internal carrot) might not be the best choice.
Edit: I hate to remove comments and it may get me banned but due to the hate speech I’m receiving regarding things unrelated to software while trying to sympathize with a frustrated security researcher who got caught up in unnecessary bureaucracy when taken en masse, I’m going to remove these comments for now. This is why we volunteer FOSS engineers have to stay clear of popular projects I guess.
Your comment said Forgejo has a disclosure process. The article says the author went with a carrot disclosure after reading the disclosure process and making a value judgement. Because your comment only mentioned Forgejo having a disclosure process, not an evaluation of the author’s evaluation of the disclosure process, it made you appear as if you had not read the article.
In your response to me calling that out, you offer an analysis. The author is lazy for using carrot disclosure over the defined disclosure process. That’s a valid take. I’m not going to disagree with that.
Edit: I hate to remove comments and it may get me banned but due to the hate speech I’m receiving regarding things unrelated to software while trying to sympathize with a frustrated security researcher who got caught up in unnecessary bureaucracy when taken en masse, I’m going to remove these comments for now. This is why we volunteer FOSS engineers have to stay clear of popular projects I guess.
Can you please point out the hate speech you received? I can’t find any in the comments here, just people having different opinions.
As the time of writing the comment I am replying to has 15 up- and 3 downvotes. Doesn’t look like it has warranted hate speech.
Forgejo has a responsible disclosure policy, but this person seems like they just don’t want to deal with that and instead opted for the nuclear option immediately.
Edit: I hate to remove comments and it may get me banned but due to the hate speech I’m receiving regarding things unrelated to software while trying to sympathize with a frustrated security researcher who got caught up in unnecessary bureaucracy when taken en masse, I’m going to remove these comments for now. This is why we volunteer FOSS engineers have to stay clear of popular projects I guess.
Erm, did you read them? The policies aren’t complex at all, just submit the issue (and proposed fix if there is one) through a secure channel, that they’re happy to help set up. If you want to disclose the vulnerability, just wait until the embargo passes so there’s time to fix and have users update. There’s not really anything else you need to do here. This is pretty standard stuff that this person just seemed too lazy to participate in.
Of the three fixes submitted, only a single one was closed since it didn’t seem very major and would be a breaking change (which shouldn’t be made without prior discussion). The other two are still open, and a maintainer is helping to add tests for the fixes (since the author didn’t add them). The only comment that was somewhat negative was that security fixes should preferably follow the established guidelines. That’s all.
Yea. But did you read the security.md?
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/SECURITY-POLICY.md
Use an encrypted email to security@forgejo.org. If you can’t, tell them and they will set one up.
Seems very assholeish to not at least do that.
Edit: I hate to remove comments and it may get me banned but due to the hate speech I’m receiving regarding things unrelated to software while trying to sympathize with a frustrated security researcher who got caught up in unnecessary bureaucracy when taken en masse, I’m going to remove these comments for now. This is why we volunteer FOSS engineers have to stay clear of popular projects I guess.
Alternatively, they could have sent the security team an email with the ‘carrot’ and saying “There seems to be fundamental, systemic, security issues in Forgejo; here’s some proof. There’s too much for me to raise individual reports, what are we going to do about it?”
I think there’s pros and cons to everything. That way would have been less of a dickhead move towards the Forgejo developers. But a big letdown to admins as they don’t know what’s up with the software they’re running on their servers. The way the author chose gives some new intelligence to admins, and they can now act on it, since it’s public knowledge. But it’s annoying to the devs.
I guess I as a Forgejo user am kinda greatful they did it this way. Now I got to learn the story and can allocate 2h on the weekend to see if my personal Forgejo container is isolated enough and whether the backups still work.
(But that’s just my opinion after reading one side of the story. Maybe there’s more to the story and they’re being a dick nonetheless…)
Edit: And regarding just dropping the security team an informal mail… I don’t know if that’s clever. You’d normally either follow some security policy, or don’t engage. Sending them other kinds of mails which violate their policy (an internal carrot) might not be the best choice.
Edit: I hate to remove comments and it may get me banned but due to the hate speech I’m receiving regarding things unrelated to software while trying to sympathize with a frustrated security researcher who got caught up in unnecessary bureaucracy when taken en masse, I’m going to remove these comments for now. This is why we volunteer FOSS engineers have to stay clear of popular projects I guess.
I don’t think you read the article.
Did you miss this part
Sounds like him being lazy.
Your comment said Forgejo has a disclosure process. The article says the author went with a carrot disclosure after reading the disclosure process and making a value judgement. Because your comment only mentioned Forgejo having a disclosure process, not an evaluation of the author’s evaluation of the disclosure process, it made you appear as if you had not read the article.
In your response to me calling that out, you offer an analysis. The author is lazy for using carrot disclosure over the defined disclosure process. That’s a valid take. I’m not going to disagree with that.