Technologist vs. spy: the xz backdoor debate

by rbcon 3/30/24, 1:20 PMwith 23 comments
by trogdoron 3/30/24, 4:19 PM

>In other words, all signs point to this being a professional, for-pay operation — and it wouldn’t be surprising if it was paid for by a foreign government.

Or a not-foreign government…

by bediger4000on 3/30/24, 2:35 PM

This is an interesting article. Zalewski is almost unique in the ability and credibility to write this. He used to work for Google in infosec, he's got a lot of experience writing code, and he no longer works for a big corporation, so he's free to say what he thinks.

by colejohnson66on 3/30/24, 5:28 PM

More evidence that the OSS community needs to drop the “many eyes” theory of security

by shnkron 3/30/24, 5:08 PM

>The relationship with commercial vendors isn’t always healthy, but many major OSS projects are supported to a significant extent.

Almost always the so called "community" supporting a OSS project is an employee of a commercial vendor who is only interested as long as he is assigned to the project or task.

The solution is to have a full time owners and maintainers for all the critical projects and the government has to foot the bill. The govt can setup a division to identify such projects.

by publius_0xf3on 3/30/24, 6:46 PM

>In fact, here’s an interesting thought: perhaps they have known for a while. Would we be able to tell the difference between a carefully-timed disclosure — presumably engineered to conceal “methods and sources” — and a serendipitous discovery?

by egberts1on 3/30/24, 4:02 PM

All that can be avoided by doing really good sets of unit tests and integration tests, then incorporate its test result into the validation part of the repository.