this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
91 points (76.9% liked)

Technology

59446 readers
3836 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
91
Today marks the 10th anniversary of the Heartbleed vulnerability in OpenSSL, which had the same ultimate root cause as recent XZUtils backdoor incident (optimizedbyotto.com)
submitted 7 months ago by otto@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The XZ Utils backdoor, discovered last week, and the Heartbleed security vulnerability ten years ago, share the same ultimate root cause. Both of them, and in fact all critical infrastructure open source projects, should be fixed with the same solution: ensure baseline funding for proper open source maintenance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kbotc@lemmy.world 43 points 7 months ago (3 children)

This entire post is asinine. The root cause of Heartbleed was the RFC was fucked. A German graduate student wrote and implemented an RFC, and was then reviewed by the only full time (and paid) member of the OpenSSL team. Claiming it was because it wasn’t funded is stupid on its face as Dr. Henson was paid for his review.

XZ’s problem was that the maintainer had a mental breakdown and lacking structure to vet the replacement, he handed control off to what seems like a very sophisticated attack group. Money would not have fixed one of the fundamental problems with anarchistic-style code production, which is how do you trust the people who vet the code?

[–] Clydesdalecrusher@programming.dev 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

So am I understanding correctly that this code wasn’t exactly handled as a normal team? Like XZ had one person vetting the replacement?