[dangus]

It would definitely be a bit silly for the author to make a fake carrot disclosure, but I thought of it just because of how reading this article made me feel distrust toward the author. IDK, they just seem like kind of a jerk!

Now, I don't think the PRs with the Forgejo folks show a lot of warm collaborative energy on their side, either, but I can see how soft skills from the author would likely have taken their PRs a lot further in getting what they want.

But the author's whole attitude is that Forejo is such a mess and it's barely worth their time to try and clean it up. Nobody's twisting their arm to contribute to an open source project that they don't even like!

From the perspective of Forgejo maintainers, the author is just some random new contributor barging in and telling them to drop some legacy support that hasn't been discussed in detail yet. And of course, this new contributor hasn't actually followed the security policy to disclose it as a high severity issue to justify the change.

[JuniperMesos]

> But the author's whole attitude is that Forejo is such a mess and it's barely worth their time to try and clean it up. Nobody's twisting their arm to contribute to an open source project that they don't even like!

> From the perspective of Forgejo maintainers, the author is just some random new contributor barging in and telling them to drop some legacy support that hasn't been discussed in detail yet. And of course, this new contributor hasn't actually followed the security policy to disclose it as a high severity issue to justify the change.

It does affect my own willingness to use Forgejo, as a current non-user. It sounds like it has some security vulnerabilities that the maintainers aren't taking seriously, perhaps because they think the people who report those vulnerabilities are jerks. Are the Forgejo maintainers themselves sure that their software isn't going to get pwned in a way they don't have the right techniques to mitigate? I'd rather know that before I run it on my own infra.

[jorams]

> It sounds like it has some security vulnerabilities that the maintainers aren't taking seriously

It may, and they may or may not, but the author hasn't actually reported any. They're explicitly ignoring the security policy and vagueposting instead.

[dangus]

The author of this blog post essentially never reported the exploit to the Forgejo maintainers. They merely submitted a security-related PR.

The maintainers aren't mind readers. They have never been directly informed that a proven exploit exists, and the author of the article actively ignored the project's reporting process despite being aware of it.

And it's not a particularly complicated report process. You literally just email them.

[chillfox]

Don’t forget, repeatedly ignoring the requirements for including tests, and instead offering up a “have tested it locally, trust me” as a substitute.

[conartist6]

The worry here is that they need to leave the security hole open because they're using it?

[conartist6]

Idunno, I think this model of disclosure feels more natural to me. The "coordinated" model can have the smack of extortion to it.

And yes, I very much want there to exist people whose specialty is finding security bugs. I wouldn't expect such a person to be a diehard contributor to any particular project. Their motivation isn't making one tool better, but keeping users safe. We need those people and the work they do badly!