4 ms·
After reading through the issue thread and the final reply by Bitwarden, I think the only context this provides is that the headline should rather be something
by hnbad 2y ago
After reading through the issue thread and the final reply by Bitwarden, I think the only context this provides is that the headline should rather be something like "Bitwarden SDK fixes dependency licensing issue".
The opening comment and the final reply are the only valuable contributions in that issue. Everything in between is random people jumping in to feign outrage or telling people to use Vaultwarden (which btw recently was in the news for more significant negative reasons). If anything it's a perfect example of the sad state of online discourse.
- ferbivore 2y agoThis wasn't an "issue", it was working as intended. The GPLv3 client intentionally depended on proprietary code. The CTO's comments on bitwarden/clients#11611, bitwarden/sdk#898 and fdroid/fdroiddata!15353 make it clear this was deliberate. They've now changed their stance because of the backlash. It looks to me like people expressed genuine concerns about being lied to by a company, one they'd trusted with their passwords no less. Calling it "feigned outrage" is a bit rude.
- kevincox 2y agoReal links for easy clicking: https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/-/merge_requests/15353 https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/-/merge_requests/15353 https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611 https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611
- SirGiggles 2y ago> (which btw recently was in the news for more significant negative reasons) Do you by chance mean CVE-2024-{39924, 39925, 39926}?
- hedora 2y agoInterestingly, none of those impact me, since they involve an authenticated attacker. I trust all the users that can log into my vaultwarden instance. Were there any other recent issues?