Technology

59429 readers

2815 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

206

Nginx core developer quits project in security dispute, starts “freenginx” fork (arstechnica.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A core developer of Nginx, the popular web server, has quit the project and started a fork called freenginx.
The developer cited disagreements with the new management at F5, which acquired Nginx Inc. in 2019, over security policies.
The dispute arose from the assigning of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) to bugs in the experimental HTTP/3 code.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/U4XRN

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 66 points 9 months ago (2 children)

So I am a bit confused on this one. Why does this particular developer or anyone really, disagree with assigning CVEs to releases code? I mean I get that it is experimental but having associated CVEs adds to disclosure on the experimental features. What is the downside of the assigned CVEs? I was all ready to jump on F5 being wrong but it sounds like they may have taken the right position. Can someone elaborate on why that may not be the case?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I believe what this is saying is that management decided to only fix CVEs in certain versions going forward, instead of older versions. It's hard to tell for sure.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (4 children)

There was another article I read that had a snippet from F5. As I read it, their concern was that they have two release tracks: the paid/subscription track, and the free track. They are actually the same code, but the free track is just 2 releases behind, so the idea is that if you want the "latest and greatest" stuff, you gotta pay. It's a fairly common strategy in the industry.

So, the concern is that for security vulnerabilities that are not CVEs, info about the vulnerability (and how to exploit it) is out in the wild for two whole releases, before the patch reaches the free-tier users.

Seems like an actively good position on F5's part, from this angle.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

What's considered as a release in the nginx world?

Any minor update or just the major updates?

Eg. 1.25.4 was recently released. 4 months prior was 1.25.3. 2 months prior to that it was 1.25.2. etc

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Just a reminder that most things nowadays that put greedy corporations into 'a good position' is detrimental to everyone else.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Thanks for that.

Its a weird that the couldn't just choose to back port the fixes that have security implications even if it wouldn't deserve a cve.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

Not particularly when you consider it is standard practice to NOT be charging for CVE and emergency for released products from similar companies. Hell, even RedHat pushed upstream and downstream packages to CentOS if they were the first to patch. Happens with Canonical and the Debian team as well. This engineer saw what F5 was doing, thought it was wrong, and bailed. Seems like a valid response to me.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 9 months ago

I think most people share your confusion. It seems that F5 was following their responsibility as a CNA, but one guy disagreed enough to leave with all his toys.