6 ms·
> I would encourage you to read up on details of McHardy’s practices. They were clearly not done in good faith and there was no attempt to encourage compliance.
by pphysch 3y ago
> I would encourage you to read up on details of McHardy’s practices. They were clearly not done in good faith and there was no attempt to encourage compliance. The only goal was to extract as much money as possible even if the violations were more technical or incidental in nature and the companies willing to attempt remedy. Even minor and unintentional violations were pursued zealously without interest in remedy - just cash.
> My understanding is he also didn’t truly prioritize deep pocketed violators (no suit against VMWare, afaik) - he prioritized that delicious sweet spot of “deep enough to pay me off, but too small to make it realistic to fight me in court”. And, again, he was uninterested in remediation of even minor and unintentional violations - he wanted cash. It seems unlikely this was helping the cause of free software.
Seems entirely possible that such a character would knowingly insert a backdoor to sell as a 0-day.
- spr-alex 3y agothis code was written before unprivileged network namespaces were much of a thing so the theory that a developer would plant a bugdoor for this is not probable. you can think of unprivileged namespaces in general as a bunch of attack surface that was previously root to kernel only and hadn't had much scrutiny. these bugs will take decades to eliminate without a rewrite of linux.