• Kogasa@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Uh, no. But thanks for guessing. It’s frivolous because it violates several principles of responsible disclosure. Yes, the scope of impact is relevant; the availability of methods of remediation is relevant; and the development/patch lifecycle is relevant. The feature being off-by-default and labeled experimental are indirect references to the scope of impact and availability of remediation, and the latter is an indirect reference to the state of development lifecycle. Per the developer(s)’ words, this is a bug that had limited risk and was scheduled to be fixed as part of the normal development schedule. Escalating every such bug, of which the vast majority go without a CVE, would quickly drown out notices that people actually care about. A CVE is not a bug report.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      People who say this should be elevated to CVE haven’t dealt with noise vs signal much.

      Is it a risk, sure, but as you said it was already “experimental”. Experimental shit means “don’t do this in prod, but only in a proper managed lab”.

      That key word: experimental.

    • SexyVetra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      “Uh, no. The CVE is valid, but it’s not about that.” You say, scrambling. “The dev cycle! It was already scheduled for release, so it’s not necessary to disclose. If everyone disclosed security bugs, we’d have too much information and we wouldn’t be able to filter for the notices we care about.” You retort, not realizing that you had already conceded that this wasn’t about the fact you didn’t care about the CVE, and instead arguing that less information is better rather than building tools to cope with the number of CVEs that are increasing regardless of their relevance to you personally.

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I didn’t say the CVE was valid. I explained why it was a mistake. I didn’t say “disclosing security bugs” is, in general, a bad thing, I said raising undue alarm about a specific class of bugs is bad. It’s not a matter of “less or more information,” because as I said, a CVE is not a bug report. It is not simply “acknowledgment of information.” If you think my argument has no merit and there is no reason why “more information” could be worse, you’re free to talk to someone who gives a shit.

        • SexyVetra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          lol and you said you weren’t big mad.

          It’s not a matter of “less or more information[…]”

          Escalating every such bug […] would quickly drown out notices that people actually care about.

          If your argument is that a specific class of security bugs aren’t worth CVEs, then make that argument. Instead, you’re saying the CVE isn’t valid and making an argument about the risk assessment and development lifecycle (as if those aren’t part of a CVE) and not the class of security bug.

          I have, this entire time, said it’s a valid CVE that you don’t care about and that you shouldn’t be working as a cybersecurity professional. You have conceded the first point and continued to demonstrate the later.