kogasa

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Err, why would there ever be something besides a tab before a tab? Are we doing ASCII art?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I do not know what that means

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If only we were still having the conversation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (4 children)

That's... not the point either. The point is that "reporting false positives isn't a bad thing" is only true up to a point. The discussion is then "is this before or after that point." Which, given the context of the bug, isn't really a given. But I don't want to have that discussion with you anymore because you're annoying.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (6 children)

"What if the boy who cried wolf got lucky and didn't get eaten in the end"? Seems to have missed the point of the parable a bit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

C# tells you the call site/method name and line number right at the top. It's only really annoying when you have aggregate exceptions, which sometimes occur because someone async'd wrong

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago (6 children)

It's not worthy of a CVE and whether it applies to me is irrelevant. I didn't say a CVE is a black mark. Frivolous reporting of CVEs damages trust in the usefulness of the system in identifying critical vulnerabilities. This is a known issue related to resumé padding by newcomers to the cybersecurity industry.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (8 children)

To a point. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

100 gang (but not for python, just let black defaults do its thing)

view more: ‹ prev next ›