2 ms·
It sounds like, unless someone is an owner or maintainer of a critical open-source project, the blog post isn't necessarily calling for that person's deanonymiz
by bluegate010 6y ago
It sounds like, unless someone is an owner or maintainer of a critical open-source project, the blog post isn't necessarily calling for that person's deanonymization. For projects that are both critical and owned/maintained by anonymous entities, I think it's reasonable for an organization to think twice before taking a dependency on such projects, given the sort of anonymous attacks mentioned in the article.
Disclaimer: opinions are my own, not my employer's (Google)
- some_furry 6y ago> I think it's reasonable for an organization to think twice before taking a dependency on such projects, given the sort of anonymous attacks mentioned in the article. I'd argue that "thinking twice" should be the standard bar for all open source dependencies, not a discrimination levied towards anonymous or pseudonymous developers. (Though, to be fair, I doubt Google would ever use any of my code. I know your cryptographers; they don't need me to contribute lol.)