5 ms·
And .... there go probably tens of thousands of person-hours of human effort due to fixing this across huge numbers of systems. It's fascinating to me that we
by zmmmmm 5y ago
And .... there go probably tens of thousands of person-hours of human effort due to fixing this across huge numbers of systems.
It's fascinating to me that we have people out there just casually making these kind of decisions with enormous cost implications with barely any thought to the downstream implications. Then meanwhile, we need approval in our org to claim a $30 taxi voucher as an expense.
- rectang 5y agoIt boggles the mind that someone thinks security decisions like these are made casually. Staying sane as an open source maintainer means ignoring such thanklessness as best you can.
- zmmmmm 5y agoPerhaps "casual" is the wrong word since it does have a pejorative implication. Put more neutrally, what I find fascinating is the asymmetry b/w the weight of process applied compared to impact. I am sure the individuals concerned thought very hard about it (I could not find the discussion on the mailing list, but from what I can see it may have been kept off the public list due to the security aspect).
- avgcorrection 5y agoIsn’t git Hamano’s day job?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y agoAre you talking about stuff getting broken by this fix, or the patching effort required? This is relatively low risk so I would expect the mitigation to consist of "let your existing automation update it".
- zmmmmm 5y agoNo, much more thinking of broken CI systems and other deployment scenarios where a shared user setup is presumed.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hyperman1 5y agoSome nature documentary explained why ants easily fall prey to anteaters. Why don't they evolve more defenses? It turns out the risk of anteaters is so low, that additional defenses are not worth the cost of e.g. slower foraging. Better count on the law of numbers, spread the risk over all ants, and get on with your life until you get unlucky. I think the same thing is going on with non-security reviewed software. The additional cost of thoroughly reviewing everything is so high and software is generally so good, that we can rely on word of mouth and past project behavior to make guesses that make economical sense. So git has proven a good enough steward in the past, and society swallows the cost of this update. Organizations trusting humans with $30 at scale has proven not to work out, so red tape grows like mushrooms in that region. And log4j2 might be an example of all of us stopping for a moment and evaluating if the cost is still worth it.