5 ms·

> What if instead of publicly blaming an OSS product, you try to get a support contract with some of the engineers behind it? If your company is too cheap for t

> What if instead of publicly blaming an OSS product, you try to get a support contract with some of the engineers behind it? If your company is too cheap for that, maybe a PR would have been nice? Yeah, no. That's not how security research works. If I disclose a security issue to you, it doesn't matter if you're a multinational trillion dollar corporation or a hobbyist in Nebraska, the onus is on you to fix it. Not the security researcher. Their job is done once it's disclosed. From the timeline: > 28/03/2024 – First communication sent with all details and a proposed fix. After that point, any additional help (including a pull request) is going above and beyond. I run into this attitude you're exhibiting a lot. Where proprietary software has the legal threats, the open source community is plagued by patch entitlement. Knowledge of a security issue in a project is, in and of itself, a valuable contribution. Expecting a PR devalues this work.

noselasd 2y ago
> If I disclose a security issue to you, it doesn't matter if you're a multinational trillion dollar corporation or a hobbyist in Nebraska, the onus is on you to fix it. Not the security researcher. Their job is done once it's disclosed. On the other hand, if I'm a hobbyist, I have 0 obligations to do or fix anything I've made open source. Patches are welcome ofcourse.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >I have 0 obligations to do or fix anything I've made open source. While technically true, this seems pretty scummy when you're advertising security software for real people and companies to use as their identity management. Nowhere on the Keycloak home page does it say "just a hobby project" or anything that would remotely indicate that it is not a serious project and that you shouldn't use the software. Instead, it seems like they are trying very hard to be taken seriously as an identity management product.
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    > Nowhere on the Keycloak home page does it say "just a hobby project" or anything that would remotely indicate that it is not a serious project and that you shouldn't use the software. https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/main/LICENSE.txt#L144-L175 https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/main/LICENSE.txt#L... Indeed 7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.
    - ziddoap 2y ago
      Point 7 buried in the license document of the github repository is very much not https://www.keycloak.org/ https://www.keycloak.org/
      - willcipriano 2y ago
        Customers have been refunded in full.
        mardifoufs 2y ago
        Red hat consumers have been refunded? Where?
        willcipriano 2y ago
        As per the terms here: https://www.keycloak.org/pricing https://www.keycloak.org/pricing
        2y ago
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  As long as you disclose that right-front on your value statement, yeah, you don't have any other obligation.
  - Macha 2y ago
    Is there an open source license that doesn't?
  - vetinari 2y ago
    It is right in the license.
    - KajMagnus 2y ago
      That's not what these licenses have come to mean. They're a way to reduce the risk that you'll get sued, but not any "I don't give a fuck" statement. You could add "I don't care about fixing security vulnerabilities" somewhere in the beginning of the readme, if you're developing security related OSS software? That'd be more clear. Maybe the WTFPL actually a little bit indicates that the developers maybe don't give a fuck, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL ?
      - kube-system 2y ago
        That sounds a little like having your cake and eating it too. 'Giving a fuck' is not really a boolean value but more of a broad spectrum. Of course, anyone who writes any software cared a little bit about it at one point, or they wouldn't have written it. But warranty is about whether they care enough to cater specifically to you when you have a problem in the future. Maybe many of these projects do care enough to give general updates to the community as a whole on a best effort basis, but that's a lower level of assurance and more voluntary than what you'd get in a legal warranty.
      - hifromwork 2y ago
        >You could add "I don't care about fixing security vulnerabilities" somewhere in the beginning of the readme I care about fixing security vulnerabilities in my OS projects, but I care more about my sanity, my family, getting enough money to survive, and a few other things. Unless you pay me I don't care about your problems with my free (as in a beer) software. And that's a good thing btw - I tried to ask for donations once, got the equivalent of a few cups of coffee per month, and... burned out almost immediately. I started to feel responsible for that project, staying up late to fix reported minor bugs, and it turns out watching Github issues 365 days a year for a few dollars monthly is not a great business strategy.
- hinkley 2y ago
  Then you should never work on software with security implications, or if you do you should keep it to yourself. I’m a terrible party host, so I don’t host parties. I help other people do so when I can.
- thunky 2y ago
  And you also shouldn't expect anyone to use your software. Which of course is up to you.
rcxdude 2y ago
There's no obligation for a hobbyist to fix the stuff they publish online. If they're selling the result, then sure, you can argue there's reasonable consideration, but just because a security researcher has made a contribution (and a valuable one) it doesn't compel any further contribution from the original author. Now, the lack of action does probably remove some of the credibility of the project as one that should be used in any security context (bit of a problem for something intended to be used as authentication).
- some_furry 2y ago
  > There's no obligation for a hobbyist to fix the stuff they publish online. Correct, but I didn't say there was. The onus being on them to fix it is predicated on anyone having such an obligation at all. If anyone has an obligation, it's always the vendor, not the researcher. But keep in mind this situation involves an IBM-funded open source project under the Red Hat product line. The hobbyist remark is tangential to the story.
- prmoustache 2y ago
  > There's no obligation for a hobbyist to fix the stuff they publish online. I may be wrong but this might not the case anymore in 2025 (not sure about the timeline) in the European Union because of the new cybersecurity acts.
  - some_furry 2y ago
    I don't have a business presence in the EU, so I rarely care about that for my own projects. (Insofar as I do care, it's limited to "let's not make GDPR compliance logically impossible when designing cryptographic features").
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    There's carve-outs in that for open source hobbyists ("not associated with commercial activity"). This was originally vaguely worded but they've now made it a lot less ambiguous, the only open source it covers is that which is being developed by a company which is also making money directly from it. (And in the case that a company takes that code and uses it in a product, they are responsible to fix any security vulnerabilities but also to report it to the author)

noselasd 2y ago

> If I disclose a security issue to you, it doesn't matter if you're a multinational trillion dollar corporation or a hobbyist in Nebraska, the onus is on you to fix it. Not the security researcher. Their job is done once it's disclosed. On the other hand, if I'm a hobbyist, I have 0 obligations to do or fix anything I've made open source. Patches are welcome ofcourse.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ziddoap 2y ago
>I have 0 obligations to do or fix anything I've made open source. While technically true, this seems pretty scummy when you're advertising security software for real people and companies to use as their identity management. Nowhere on the Keycloak home page does it say "just a hobby project" or anything that would remotely indicate that it is not a serious project and that you shouldn't use the software. Instead, it seems like they are trying very hard to be taken seriously as an identity management product.
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  > Nowhere on the Keycloak home page does it say "just a hobby project" or anything that would remotely indicate that it is not a serious project and that you shouldn't use the software. https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/main/LICENSE.txt#L144-L175 https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/main/LICENSE.txt#L... Indeed 7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    Point 7 buried in the license document of the github repository is very much not https://www.keycloak.org/ https://www.keycloak.org/
    - willcipriano 2y ago
      Customers have been refunded in full.
      - mardifoufs 2y ago
        Red hat consumers have been refunded? Where?
        willcipriano 2y ago
        As per the terms here: https://www.keycloak.org/pricing https://www.keycloak.org/pricing
        2y ago
marcosdumay 2y ago
As long as you disclose that right-front on your value statement, yeah, you don't have any other obligation.
- Macha 2y ago
  Is there an open source license that doesn't?
- vetinari 2y ago
  It is right in the license.
  - KajMagnus 2y ago
    That's not what these licenses have come to mean. They're a way to reduce the risk that you'll get sued, but not any "I don't give a fuck" statement. You could add "I don't care about fixing security vulnerabilities" somewhere in the beginning of the readme, if you're developing security related OSS software? That'd be more clear. Maybe the WTFPL actually a little bit indicates that the developers maybe don't give a fuck, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL ?
    - kube-system 2y ago
      That sounds a little like having your cake and eating it too. 'Giving a fuck' is not really a boolean value but more of a broad spectrum. Of course, anyone who writes any software cared a little bit about it at one point, or they wouldn't have written it. But warranty is about whether they care enough to cater specifically to you when you have a problem in the future. Maybe many of these projects do care enough to give general updates to the community as a whole on a best effort basis, but that's a lower level of assurance and more voluntary than what you'd get in a legal warranty.
    - hifromwork 2y ago
      >You could add "I don't care about fixing security vulnerabilities" somewhere in the beginning of the readme I care about fixing security vulnerabilities in my OS projects, but I care more about my sanity, my family, getting enough money to survive, and a few other things. Unless you pay me I don't care about your problems with my free (as in a beer) software. And that's a good thing btw - I tried to ask for donations once, got the equivalent of a few cups of coffee per month, and... burned out almost immediately. I started to feel responsible for that project, staying up late to fix reported minor bugs, and it turns out watching Github issues 365 days a year for a few dollars monthly is not a great business strategy.
hinkley 2y ago
Then you should never work on software with security implications, or if you do you should keep it to yourself. I’m a terrible party host, so I don’t host parties. I help other people do so when I can.
thunky 2y ago
And you also shouldn't expect anyone to use your software. Which of course is up to you.

rcxdude 2y ago

There's no obligation for a hobbyist to fix the stuff they publish online. If they're selling the result, then sure, you can argue there's reasonable consideration, but just because a security researcher has made a contribution (and a valuable one) it doesn't compel any further contribution from the original author. Now, the lack of action does probably remove some of the credibility of the project as one that should be used in any security context (bit of a problem for something intended to be used as authentication).

some_furry 2y ago
> There's no obligation for a hobbyist to fix the stuff they publish online. Correct, but I didn't say there was. The onus being on them to fix it is predicated on anyone having such an obligation at all. If anyone has an obligation, it's always the vendor, not the researcher. But keep in mind this situation involves an IBM-funded open source project under the Red Hat product line. The hobbyist remark is tangential to the story.
prmoustache 2y ago
> There's no obligation for a hobbyist to fix the stuff they publish online. I may be wrong but this might not the case anymore in 2025 (not sure about the timeline) in the European Union because of the new cybersecurity acts.
- some_furry 2y ago
  I don't have a business presence in the EU, so I rarely care about that for my own projects. (Insofar as I do care, it's limited to "let's not make GDPR compliance logically impossible when designing cryptographic features").
- rcxdude 2y ago
  There's carve-outs in that for open source hobbyists ("not associated with commercial activity"). This was originally vaguely worded but they've now made it a lot less ambiguous, the only open source it covers is that which is being developed by a company which is also making money directly from it. (And in the case that a company takes that code and uses it in a product, they are responsible to fix any security vulnerabilities but also to report it to the author)