486
submitted 1 year ago by testeronious@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] xlash123@sh.itjust.works 270 points 1 year ago

Commit 77a294d

Update maintainer and author info. The other maintainer suddenly disappeared.

Lmao, that's putting it lightly.

[-] 7eter@feddit.de 164 points 1 year ago

the other maintainer now has a special place:

Special author: Jia Tan was a co-maintainer in 2022-2024. He and the team behind him inserted a backdoor (CVE-2024-3094) into XZ Utils 5.6.0 and 5.6.1 releases. He suddenly disappeared when this was discovered.

[-] rollingflower@lemmy.kde.social 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] intrepid@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

I don't think they would be in much peace. It was years of their work that was ruined by a person with OCD and valgrind.

[-] rollingflower@lemmy.kde.social 74 points 1 year ago

Can we stop calling a good software dev autistic or stuff?

[-] autokludge@programming.dev 72 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hmm yes.

The floor is made out of floor

[-] mutter9355@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago

I like how the first point made is that the backdoor violates the Debian Free Software Guidelines, as if that's the main problem

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 125 points 1 year ago

I wonder if he has a donation page. We need to get him some money.

[-] kadu@lemmy.world 249 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree we should support him, but you know who should be more concerned with giving him and other open source maintainers money? The billion dollar corporations that rely on these critical projects and use them absolutely for free. Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, Google, Siemens, Motorola, God knows how many more.

[-] Lmaydev@programming.dev 84 points 1 year ago

But when open source projects go dual license to try and get paid people lose their minds.

[-] rollingflower@lemmy.kde.social 21 points 1 year ago

This!!!!

This!!

People, stop celebrating "freeing" software of maintainers that want to prevent being exploited.

[-] ricdeh@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Because that's ~~a bad~~ not even a solution.

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

What about a license that would require every company with a market cap above 25 B that (indirectly) uses the software to contribute X amount (like $1000 a year) of revenue back?

[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think if that caught on then companies would call it undue burden to sift through all the dependencies they use to make such small payments.

It is a difficult problem. But on the face of it your suggestion seems very reasonable.

[-] far_university1990@feddit.de 13 points 1 year ago

Maybe that force them to just donate to every dependency, probably cheaper on their level. And better for project.

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

GitHub has a tool built-in to show all dependencies, it's not that hard to write a little script to check the LICENSE files in the repositories. I'm sure one of the biggest companies in the world has the ability to do that.

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago

One of the biggest companies in the world used Copilot to give its users code scraped from GitHub projects without telling them it came from GitHub and that it's under various licenses that need to be followed.

https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/case-updates.html

[-] Lmaydev@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

If dual licensing was standard the software that uses things like xz would pay down the line so everything was funded.

[-] Astongt615@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

I mean this is already a thing to certain degrees right? Virtualization platforms I use both are free for personal use, but not business use, or at least certain feature package use isn't permitted. What's the difference? Putting the software under a different license/eula?

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, but the proposed license would also be free for businesses except for the largest in the world.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Seriously. If you're not a business why do you care?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] aard@kyu.de 37 points 1 year ago

He probably needs a comaintainer. We could select one of us and then try pressuring him into accepting that.

[-] intrepid@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago

Stop right there, Jio Tan! The same trick doesn't work twice.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 year ago

We need more non profits who can set aside funds for these projects. It not like these companies don't want to help its just jot entirely clear how they can help.

[-] mraow_ 3 points 1 year ago

They can help by donating some of their billions.

[-] Strit@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show 5 points 1 year ago

Sure. But if the project in question only has one or two donation methods and none of those are supported by the company, then the company can't easily donate anything. Companies usually have a strict way of how they can donate and it usually entails Paypal or some other costly solution, while projects like that likely just has a patreon or LibrePay option and perhaps a crypto wallet. Most companies can't work with that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] someacnt_@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I bet Samsung would not even know if open source is a thing

[-] TdotMatrix@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I gotta hand it to Samsung that they outline all the open source licences they use, at least in their Galaxy smartphone products:

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

As required by the licenses, yes. That's the bare minimum lol.

[-] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Samsung is the primary developer for Tizen, a Linux based OS similar to Android. Their watches, cameras, and TVs run it.

https://www.tizen.org/

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MenigPyle@feddit.dk 13 points 1 year ago

I wrote to ask him but I never heard back. To be fair he's probably quite stressed at the moment.

[-] Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 59 points 1 year ago

Can someone provide a summary on what this means? I thought there were malicious exploits in this. Why is it back up and the perpetrator unbanned?

[-] Nomad_Scry@lemmy.sdf.org 152 points 1 year ago

Lasse Collin is not the perpetrator, that would be "Jia Tan".

https://tukaani.org/xz-backdoor/

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 93 points 1 year ago

Lasse is the original maintainer of XZ, they have been placed back in their position as sole maintainer.

"Jia Tan" was the person who slipped the backdoor into XZ and is now banned.

Lasse has already fixed abd removed the backdoor.

XZ itself is critical software everyone uses (its one of the main compression/decompression programs used on linux)

[-] Auli@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes but damage seems to be done. Distros are talking or have moved off of it to zstd.

[-] bhamlin@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

There are some, probably. But any exodus will be slow. Xz isn't useless because it was dangerous once.

[-] intrepid@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago

Besides, XZ isn't the only project in such a danger. Banning doesn't solve that problem. They need to put in more funding and eyes.

[-] PlexSheep@infosec.pub 10 points 1 year ago

Zstd and xz fullfil different needs. Xz take more time to compress and is faster to decompress as far as I know.

[-] Atemu@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

XZ is a slog to compress and decompress but compresses a bit smaller than zstd.

zstd is quite quick to compress, very quick to decompress, scales to many cores (vanilla xz is single-core only) and scales a lot further in the quicker end of the compression speed <-> file size trade-off spectrum while using the same format.

[-] Calyhre@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I would argue this might make xz safer mid-term. So much eyes on it. I’m not familiar with other solutions, but who’s to say the bad actor won’t try a similar trick elsewhere

[-] 4am@lemm.ee 57 points 1 year ago

Exploits were removed. Maintainer who committed them still banned. xz is a critical piece of software.

[-] abc@lemmus.org 41 points 1 year ago

There's a Wikipedia article regarding this incident. Have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor

[-] treadful@lemmy.zip 39 points 1 year ago

Don't downvote people asking questions.

[-] silliewous@feddit.nl 37 points 1 year ago

The second maintainer was most likely the culprit.

[-] bhamlin@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

This sounds just like something Jia Tan might say...

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
486 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

56374 readers
452 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS