3 ms·

I don't understand the downvotes. This is unfortunately an issue with Google projects. code.google.com was another useful service that bit the dust.

DannyBee 10y ago
The downvotes are because 1. it's irrelevant. This is an open source project, google code was a project hosting environment. 2. Google code "bit the dust" after being around 10+ years, and being replaced by something else .... (and had tools/etc and hand holding for the deprecation). So, 10 years from now, if someone has made "the github of open source fuzzing", and it's not this project, yeah, i guess it's fair that it might bite the dust. But honestly, much like Google code, if 10 years from now, someone else has replaced oss fuzz with something that has hundreds of thousands of open source projects, i'd call that success, not failure. 3. It's even less of a hard dependency.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  github is a terrible replacement for code search.
dispose13432 10y ago
Because unlike google code, this isn't going to be a hard dependency. When google code went down, existing sites (which used it as a CDN) broke and communities broke up. Here, you can do this on your own computer if you want. It's like complaining that SF took down Compile Farm (which is actually worse, they had proprietary Unixen on their system).
- dgacmu 10y ago
  Definitely this. The hard work, from my experience, in hooking up to a fuzzer is writing the wrappers to hook in to the fuzzer, and creating a set of examples from which to begin fuzzing intelligently. Automated fuzzing is the icing on top of that hard work. It magnifies the utility of doing the work to fuzz by making it run continuously and by throwing more computational resources at it to find more bugs. But, unlike, say, coding to some closed API where you're up a creek if the service goes away, most of the hard work is portable, and you can still run it on your own cluster. AFL and libFuzzer are open source and quite awesome on their own.
  - hodgesrm 10y ago
    OK, thanks for the answers. We had product code on code.google.com and it was definitely a bummer when the site shut down. I'm possibly alone in the galaxy in saying this but I really liked their bug tracker which was lightweight but just functional enough to be really useful.

DannyBee 10y ago

The downvotes are because 1. it's irrelevant. This is an open source project, google code was a project hosting environment. 2. Google code "bit the dust" after being around 10+ years, and being replaced by something else .... (and had tools/etc and hand holding for the deprecation). So, 10 years from now, if someone has made "the github of open source fuzzing", and it's not this project, yeah, i guess it's fair that it might bite the dust. But honestly, much like Google code, if 10 years from now, someone else has replaced oss fuzz with something that has hundreds of thousands of open source projects, i'd call that success, not failure. 3. It's even less of a hard dependency.

tedunangst 10y ago
github is a terrible replacement for code search.

dispose13432 10y ago

Because unlike google code, this isn't going to be a hard dependency. When google code went down, existing sites (which used it as a CDN) broke and communities broke up. Here, you can do this on your own computer if you want. It's like complaining that SF took down Compile Farm (which is actually worse, they had proprietary Unixen on their system).

dgacmu 10y ago
Definitely this. The hard work, from my experience, in hooking up to a fuzzer is writing the wrappers to hook in to the fuzzer, and creating a set of examples from which to begin fuzzing intelligently. Automated fuzzing is the icing on top of that hard work. It magnifies the utility of doing the work to fuzz by making it run continuously and by throwing more computational resources at it to find more bugs. But, unlike, say, coding to some closed API where you're up a creek if the service goes away, most of the hard work is portable, and you can still run it on your own cluster. AFL and libFuzzer are open source and quite awesome on their own.
- hodgesrm 10y ago
  OK, thanks for the answers. We had product code on code.google.com and it was definitely a bummer when the site shut down. I'm possibly alone in the galaxy in saying this but I really liked their bug tracker which was lightweight but just functional enough to be really useful.