[Brian_K_White]

More fantasy. Presumes the bug only exists in some part of ffmpeg that can be disabled at all, and that you don't need, and that you are even in control over your use of ffmpeg in the first place.

Sure, in maybe 1 special lucky case you might be empowered. And in 99 other cases you are subject to a bug without being in the remotest control over it since it's buried away within something you use and don't even have the option not to use the surface service or app let alone control it's subcomponents.

[rcxdude]

It's a heck of a lot better than being unaware of it.

(To put this in context: I assume that on average a published security vulnerability is known about to at least some malicious actors before it's published. If it's published, it's me finding out about it, not the bad actors suddenly getting a new tool)

[Brian_K_White]

it's only better if you can act on it equal to the bad guys. If the bad guys get to act on it before you, or before some other good guys do on your behalf, then no it's not better

remember we're not talking about keeping a bug secret, we're talking about using a power tool to generate a fire hose of bugs and only doing that, not fixing them

[dotancohen]

The bug in question revolves around support for codec that has never been in wide use, and was only in obscure use over 25 years ago.

[Brian_K_White]

There is no "the bug". The discussion is about what to do with the power of bug-finding tools.

[zamadatix]

"The bug" in question refers to the one found by the bug-finding tool the article claims triggered the latest episode of debate. Nobody is claiming it's the only bug, just that this triggering bug highlighted was a clear example of where there is actually such a clear cut line.

Google does contribute some patches for codecs they actually consume e.g. https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/commit/b1febda061955c6f4bfb..., the bug in question was just an example of one the bug finding tool found that they didn't consume - which leads to this conversation.