4 ms·
Obviously the intent was never to introduce security vulnerabilities, no matter how naive and badly thought-out their methodology was. The intent was to show it
by kmm 5y ago
Obviously the intent was never to introduce security vulnerabilities, no matter how naive and badly thought-out their methodology was. The intent was to show it could be done. None of the proposed vulnerabilities ever got in the kernel, whenever they were at risk of being accepted, the maintainer was warned and the process was aborted.
- junon 5y agoNot from what I read. They mentioned there were multiple commits on stable branch.
- CRConrad 5y agoYes, but that's among all those previous commits from anyone with a University of Minnesota address that mr Kroah-Hartman ripped out; some going back over a decade ago, others five or six years. AFAICT those were from totally unrelated people, many of whom may not even be there any more, and who had nothing to do with this project. If there are bugs in those, then I think we must conclude that those are "genuine" inadvertent bugs. Unless we were to assume there have been similar research projects there before... Which were never publicised anywhere at all and remain secret to this day? That wouldn't be a research project but genuine black-hat activity. But AFAICS there's no more logical reason to suspect former UMinn contributors of that than any other former contributors.