4 ms·

In this case: I did, and it was immediately closed without any change to the code, documentation, process, or culture.

iamatworknow 10y ago
I'd say you did your due diligence then.
Alupis 10y ago
> In this case: I did, and it was immediately closed without any change to the code, documentation, process, or culture. You left out the part where they told you this perceived issue did not impact their codebase, due to how they were using the upstream project you cited.[1] > While this is an issue it does not affect us as we aren't using session cookies with slim You then started to rant about how they don't update their dependencies "quick enough". [1] https://github.com/samilliken/openDCIM/issues/837 https://github.com/samilliken/openDCIM/issues/837
- joepie91_ 10y ago
  > You left out the part where they told you this perceived issue did not impact their codebase, due to how they were using the upstream project you cited. This is completely irrelevant. Vulnerable dependencies are vulnerable dependencies, and trying to avoid updates because you're "not affected" is a really good way to get owned. This is for the exact same reason that "yes, there's an XSS vulnerability in the admin panel, but that doesn't matter because it requires an admin login" is invalid. At some point, somebody is going to combine multiple "unexploitable" vulnerabilities or exploitation paths that you overlooked, and successfully compromise your system. A vulnerable dependency means that you need to update that dependency, full stop. No exceptions.
  - Alupis 10y ago
    Whether it's relevant or not is up for the project maintainer to decide. All anyone can do is point out what they perceive as a potential problem, and then let the others take it from there. CiPHPerCoder didn't exactly do that. He came out guns ablaze from the start, using bolded text, italics and inflammatory phrasing - basically just stopping short of calling the project maintainer a complete idiot. It's not surprising CiPHPerCoder got the reaction he did - it is, however, surprising he decided to do all this under his company's name. It's almost like CiPHPerCoder is personally offended that some joe random developer hasn't heard about some obscure CVE CiPHPerCoder was involved with, or that they didn't handle it like he would like. "Do you know who I am!?" The initial issue was he came here and ranted about it, instead of pointing it out to the projects. Eventually he "gave in" and reported it to a single project, but took this holier-than-thou tone and was aggressive the entire time. That's ridiculous.
    - CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
      > It's almost like CiPHPerCoder is personally offended that some joe random developer hasn't heard about some obscure CVE CiPHPerCoder was involved with, or that they didn't handle it like he would like. "Do you know who I am!?" Except this isn't "some joe random developer", this is software created by and for the US government, which is featured on code.gov. I'd expect them to take security seriously and apply all upstream security patches immediately, not sit on them for years after they've been resolved. Anything but that is sheer negligence. What else hasn't been updated which contains vulnerabilities that do affect them? > The initial issue was he came here and ranted about it, instead of pointing it out to the projects. That's what joepie91 was trying to explain to you. > Eventually he "gave in" and reported it to a single project, but took this holier-than-thou tone and was aggressive the entire time. That's ridiculous. Would you rather I do that or not report it to them at all? Choose only one. If I'm going to do it, I'm not going to do it your way. You can if you want. Personally, I'd rather not report bugs at all. Until you've reported vulnerabilities to two or three dozen different projects, this might not mean much, but: It burns you out to keep reporting the same flaws to different projects. Having developers respond to security risks with an air of entitlement just turns up the heat on the burn-out engine. The first response to my comment here was You should send in a pull request, or file a bug report in the repo. Pay attention to the order of operations here. The "should" is immediately associated with a large amount of unpaid work, with an alternative that would also be a large amount of unpaid work disguised as a hypothetically smaller amount of effort. But as others have stated: It's not. > It's not surprising CiPHPerCoder got the reaction he did - it is, however, surprising he decided to do all this under his company's name. Even if I had remembered to switch Github accounts, people would still associate it with my employer anyway. Kind of a moot point, really. I gave you what you asked for. Next time, maybe don't tell people what they should do? It's rude to bark orders like that, and it won't get the result you want.
      - Alupis 10y ago
        Perhaps if you didn't act like a jackass when reporting bugs, you'd have better interactions, and get less of the "burn out" feeling you're describing. And next time you decide to put on a show, consider not doing it under your company name. You're forgetting this arrogant display is here for all to witness, including folks who may (or may not, now) want to contract your company in the future. You also seem to forget the very folks behind code.gov are the same ones that influence who gets contracted with the government... The people working on code.gov and all of the repositories are truly doing something great. Code has been in the federal government for at least 60 years, probably longer - and this is the first time something like code.gov has been produced. It's an amazing effort, and it's surely not easy to effect change like this at the federal level. The open source initiative will help increase code quality at the federal level, as well as encourage less duplication of efforts (different agencies likely solve similar or the same problems very often). It also encourages a baseline standard of code and organization. This is a fantastic beginning! Next time, a simple "Hey, did you guys know about CVE-2015-2171? You may have some vulnerabilities." is all that's needed. Instead, you let everyone know you were in a fit of rage - how dare someone suggest you comment on an issue you brought up! We need to encourage and support these efforts, not shit all over them. In short, don't be an ass... please.

I'd say you did your due diligence then.

> In this case: I did, and it was immediately closed without any change to the code, documentation, process, or culture. You left out the part where they told you this perceived issue did not impact their codebase, due to how they were using the upstream project you cited.[1] > While this is an issue it does not affect us as we aren't using session cookies with slim You then started to rant about how they don't update their dependencies "quick enough". [1] https://github.com/samilliken/openDCIM/issues/837 https://github.com/samilliken/openDCIM/issues/837

joepie91_ 10y ago
> You left out the part where they told you this perceived issue did not impact their codebase, due to how they were using the upstream project you cited. This is completely irrelevant. Vulnerable dependencies are vulnerable dependencies, and trying to avoid updates because you're "not affected" is a really good way to get owned. This is for the exact same reason that "yes, there's an XSS vulnerability in the admin panel, but that doesn't matter because it requires an admin login" is invalid. At some point, somebody is going to combine multiple "unexploitable" vulnerabilities or exploitation paths that you overlooked, and successfully compromise your system. A vulnerable dependency means that you need to update that dependency, full stop. No exceptions.
- Alupis 10y ago
  Whether it's relevant or not is up for the project maintainer to decide. All anyone can do is point out what they perceive as a potential problem, and then let the others take it from there. CiPHPerCoder didn't exactly do that. He came out guns ablaze from the start, using bolded text, italics and inflammatory phrasing - basically just stopping short of calling the project maintainer a complete idiot. It's not surprising CiPHPerCoder got the reaction he did - it is, however, surprising he decided to do all this under his company's name. It's almost like CiPHPerCoder is personally offended that some joe random developer hasn't heard about some obscure CVE CiPHPerCoder was involved with, or that they didn't handle it like he would like. "Do you know who I am!?" The initial issue was he came here and ranted about it, instead of pointing it out to the projects. Eventually he "gave in" and reported it to a single project, but took this holier-than-thou tone and was aggressive the entire time. That's ridiculous.
  - CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
    > It's almost like CiPHPerCoder is personally offended that some joe random developer hasn't heard about some obscure CVE CiPHPerCoder was involved with, or that they didn't handle it like he would like. "Do you know who I am!?" Except this isn't "some joe random developer", this is software created by and for the US government, which is featured on code.gov. I'd expect them to take security seriously and apply all upstream security patches immediately, not sit on them for years after they've been resolved. Anything but that is sheer negligence. What else hasn't been updated which contains vulnerabilities that do affect them? > The initial issue was he came here and ranted about it, instead of pointing it out to the projects. That's what joepie91 was trying to explain to you. > Eventually he "gave in" and reported it to a single project, but took this holier-than-thou tone and was aggressive the entire time. That's ridiculous. Would you rather I do that or not report it to them at all? Choose only one. If I'm going to do it, I'm not going to do it your way. You can if you want. Personally, I'd rather not report bugs at all. Until you've reported vulnerabilities to two or three dozen different projects, this might not mean much, but: It burns you out to keep reporting the same flaws to different projects. Having developers respond to security risks with an air of entitlement just turns up the heat on the burn-out engine. The first response to my comment here was You should send in a pull request, or file a bug report in the repo. Pay attention to the order of operations here. The "should" is immediately associated with a large amount of unpaid work, with an alternative that would also be a large amount of unpaid work disguised as a hypothetically smaller amount of effort. But as others have stated: It's not. > It's not surprising CiPHPerCoder got the reaction he did - it is, however, surprising he decided to do all this under his company's name. Even if I had remembered to switch Github accounts, people would still associate it with my employer anyway. Kind of a moot point, really. I gave you what you asked for. Next time, maybe don't tell people what they should do? It's rude to bark orders like that, and it won't get the result you want.
    - Alupis 10y ago
      Perhaps if you didn't act like a jackass when reporting bugs, you'd have better interactions, and get less of the "burn out" feeling you're describing. And next time you decide to put on a show, consider not doing it under your company name. You're forgetting this arrogant display is here for all to witness, including folks who may (or may not, now) want to contract your company in the future. You also seem to forget the very folks behind code.gov are the same ones that influence who gets contracted with the government... The people working on code.gov and all of the repositories are truly doing something great. Code has been in the federal government for at least 60 years, probably longer - and this is the first time something like code.gov has been produced. It's an amazing effort, and it's surely not easy to effect change like this at the federal level. The open source initiative will help increase code quality at the federal level, as well as encourage less duplication of efforts (different agencies likely solve similar or the same problems very often). It also encourages a baseline standard of code and organization. This is a fantastic beginning! Next time, a simple "Hey, did you guys know about CVE-2015-2171? You may have some vulnerabilities." is all that's needed. Instead, you let everyone know you were in a fit of rage - how dare someone suggest you comment on an issue you brought up! We need to encourage and support these efforts, not shit all over them. In short, don't be an ass... please.