3 ms·

I agree that the statement is good. I only wish they'd addressed the concerns that were raised regarding them having access to/messing with private repos.

chris11 13y ago
I didn't quite read the statement as saying the founder's wife had access to private repos. I just read it as saying that the founder's wife claimed to have access to private company communication, specifically chat logs only intended for github employees. But a statement clearing the concerns up would be nice.
- watson 13y ago
  You're right - the TechCrunch article didn't mention access to private repos - only private employee chatrooms. But the question was raised here on HN, asking if she did have access to private employee chatrooms what else might she or others have access to? If the security is lax in one area, one might assume it's lax in others as well. But it's just speculation - but it has merit non the less [edit: spelling]
  - jen_h 13y ago
    There's no way to know unless someone comes out and says it explicitly, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that the aforementioned "spies" emailed specific chat logs to her. In a toxic environment, that kind of stuff gets passed around willy-nilly. That's the first conclusion I jumped to after reading the TechCrunch article, anyway.
- nightpool 13y ago
  I personally just read the quote as meaning the wife knew her husband's passwords (and where to find company chat logs). Theoretically, this might give her access to private repositories, but only to the extent the founder in question does. A problem, to be sure, but its not like they were giving away credentials to people.
- shepbook 13y ago
  They use campfire so giving anyone access to the chat logs would be as simple as adding them. They could then look at any logged history (almost all of it, unless the room was locked) and search through it however they liked.
  - madeofpalk 13y ago
    I'm under the impression that GitHub has moved away from campfire and uses their own custom chat system [1]: https://twitter.com/holman/status/444642237456998400 https://twitter.com/holman/status/444642237456998400
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      At the same time: http://zachholman.com/posts/github-communication/ http://zachholman.com/posts/github-communication/ > We still use (and love) Campfire.
    - narohi 13y ago
      That's probably a custom client for Campfire (right underneath the screenshot[1] they say it's Campfire). [1]: http://zachholman.com/posts/github-communication/ http://zachholman.com/posts/github-communication/ (first screenshot)
      - madeofpalk 13y ago
        I was confused when I read the tweet after the article, but this seems like the most likely explanation

chris11 13y ago

I didn't quite read the statement as saying the founder's wife had access to private repos. I just read it as saying that the founder's wife claimed to have access to private company communication, specifically chat logs only intended for github employees. But a statement clearing the concerns up would be nice.

watson 13y ago
You're right - the TechCrunch article didn't mention access to private repos - only private employee chatrooms. But the question was raised here on HN, asking if she did have access to private employee chatrooms what else might she or others have access to? If the security is lax in one area, one might assume it's lax in others as well. But it's just speculation - but it has merit non the less [edit: spelling]
- jen_h 13y ago
  There's no way to know unless someone comes out and says it explicitly, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that the aforementioned "spies" emailed specific chat logs to her. In a toxic environment, that kind of stuff gets passed around willy-nilly. That's the first conclusion I jumped to after reading the TechCrunch article, anyway.
nightpool 13y ago
I personally just read the quote as meaning the wife knew her husband's passwords (and where to find company chat logs). Theoretically, this might give her access to private repositories, but only to the extent the founder in question does. A problem, to be sure, but its not like they were giving away credentials to people.
shepbook 13y ago
They use campfire so giving anyone access to the chat logs would be as simple as adding them. They could then look at any logged history (almost all of it, unless the room was locked) and search through it however they liked.
- madeofpalk 13y ago
  I'm under the impression that GitHub has moved away from campfire and uses their own custom chat system [1]: https://twitter.com/holman/status/444642237456998400 https://twitter.com/holman/status/444642237456998400
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    At the same time: http://zachholman.com/posts/github-communication/ http://zachholman.com/posts/github-communication/ > We still use (and love) Campfire.
  - narohi 13y ago
    That's probably a custom client for Campfire (right underneath the screenshot[1] they say it's Campfire). [1]: http://zachholman.com/posts/github-communication/ http://zachholman.com/posts/github-communication/ (first screenshot)
    - madeofpalk 13y ago
      I was confused when I read the tweet after the article, but this seems like the most likely explanation