4 ms·
No clue personally, but the author is prolific enough here that I thought it merited posting.
by subract 2y ago
No clue personally, but the author is prolific enough here that I thought it merited posting.
- ggm 2y agoI go with three paths out. 1. it consumes too much systems resources. So its net-negative impact on the system under observation 2. it's misleading and leads to false diagnoses of situations under review 3. she's under an NDA of some kind related to a CVE or some other high class risk which will come out in due course but she felt a burden to stop people being exposed to risk. 4. I can't count and there are 4, 5, 6 other reasons but these 3 are mine.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoI'll go with number 3. She didn't just say "don't run", she said "uninstall". That doesn't sound like "misleading" or "uses too much resources". It sounds very CVE-ish.
- arkx 2y agoAnother xz case?
- bee_rider 2y agoDoes atop have any legitimate need to connect to the network? I can’t think of any legitimate accidental security holes that might show up in something like atop, but then, these utilities often have funky features I don’t know about!
- _--__--__ 2y agoThat's what it smells like but this is still a weird way to disclose something like that. I imagine some people with free afternoons are taking a stab at auditing atop's PR history right now. I'm not personally up to the task, but the fact that the top 3 contributors other than the original author are ByteDance employees might cause some to jump to conclusions.
- phire 2y ago"uninstall" points at a very specific type of exploit.
- adrianmonk 2y agoAssuming it's actually necessary to uninstall. It might just be that "uninstall" is the simplest one-word advice you can give that will definitely solve the problem.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- benmmurphy 2y ago1) is possible because it uses some interesting options like nice/mlockall/changing its oom score so if the atop process went out of control your box would probably be fucked.
- crimsonpowder 2y agoIf it was 1 or 2, there would be a long Rachel-style post ranting about it and explaining exactly why. It has to be 3. And she knows her stuff, so I'm listening. Luckily we don't use atop.
- thayne 2y agoBut if it was 3, why not say "I know there is a vulnerability, but I can't share the details"? I'm not saying it isn't 3, but if it is, it seems like there might be more to it than a run-of-the-mill CVE. Or maybe she doesn't know of a specific vulnerability/backdoor but has some reason to be suspicious there might be.