Everyone should have migrated already anyway.
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
240 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
59429 readers
3058 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
That's why you should migrate to a Forgejo or GitLab instance.
Any thoughts on codeberg? I've seen a project or to there.
No open repo is safe from attacks like this.
Wtf why is this being downvoted
Because they obviously didn't read the article?
Unless you only use software and libraries hosted on gitlab, which you don't, then that's immaterial to this problem. GitHub is a target because of it's size, Gitlab and friends are seemingly just as vulnerable to this sort of attack, which ONLY works because of human nature. Which last I checked is the same regardless of platform...
Gitlab is open source. You can download it and host it yourself. A decentralized developer community is resilient against this sort of attack for the very reason GitHub is so vulnerable: size.
Git was always designed with decentralized development and collaboration in mind. Its creator, Linus Torvalds, prefers not to bother with servers like GitHub at all. Git can even be used entirely over email (Linus’s preference)!
Gitlab is open source. You can download it and host it yourself. A decentralized developer community is resilient against this sort of attack for the very reason GitHub is so vulnerable: size.
Um, what? Sorry but if someone is going to send, say, ten million malicious contributions (or heck, even just one), I don't particularly want to deal with that on my self hosted server. I'd rather someone else deal with it.
Git was always designed with decentralized development and collaboration in mind. Its creator, Linus Torvalds, prefers not to bother with servers like GitHub at all. Git can even be used entirely over email (Linus’s preference)!
The Linux project created Git to solve problems they had. Pretty much no other project in the world has the same set of problems - it's a highly unusual open source project with tens of millions in market value. Other projects have very different needs.
A decentralized developer community is resilient against this sort of attack for the very reason GitHub is so vulnerable: size.
No, it's not. Not in literally any way. Not 1%. Not 0.000000000000000001%. You don't even get security by obscurity as a nebulous benefit because the core mechanisms are basically the same between instances.
No projects are being compromised. They're being imitated and passed off as the real thing to the naive. You can just as easily do that on another server (including established ones by adding multiple domains to your scripts) when people expect to use thousands of different git hosts as you can on GitHub, except without the benefit of the scale of Microsoft's expertise at handling this type of attack.
I'm all for federated git being the way forward. I'd love to see it grow into a reasonable option. But it has no benefit in any context against an attack like this.
a decentralized community that correctly prioritizes security would absolutely be using signed commits and other web-of-trust security practices to prevent this sort of problem
New accounts exist and have good reason to exist. You can't and shouldn't ban new accounts from creating projects.
Anyone capable of understanding what "web of trust" means is already way too sophisticated to be misled by these fake projects.
What kind of lowlife attacks GitHub of all places?!
Meh, they practically fold at every complaint to takedown tools that get accused of piracy.
Nintendo especially gets annoying about deleting every possible fork of some tiny script that extracts the switch keys.
Plus it's Microsoft, let them deal with it lol.
The smart kind of lowlife. Because it’s a very large and generally trusted source, meaning it’s an excellent vector for attacks. Sometimes the simplest reason is the most likely.
https://www.eigenmagic.com/2010/12/31/why-some-people-hate-microsoft-a-history-lesson/
it's worth the read, but the conclusion at the end is important
Who cares?
Well, everyone who uses a computer should, particularly if we consider what might have happened if Microsoft hadn’t abused their market power. When a monopolist abuses their power, customers all lose, because they don’t get to enjoy the more rapid improvements that robust competition provides. It’s one of the key reasons we think competition is a good thing.
[...] But lastly, and this is the big one for me, we might not have a monoculture of operating system on the Internet with such a poor security model.
[...] Imagine a world where Symantec didn’t exist, because viruses weren’t so easy to write and spread to all the world’s computers. Imagine a world where spam didn’t constitute 90% of all email because it wasn’t so easy to take over a PC and turn it into a botnet zombie. Imagine not having to do impromptu tech-support for family members who accidentally installed a bunch of spyware.
[...]Imagine all the time and money that has been, and continues to be, spent on fixing all of the issues that a better security model 10-15 years ago might have avoided.
In Summary
Microsoft have made (or bought) some excellent products, as they continue to do. There are many wise, capable, and perfectly reasonable people who work there, what with it being a big company and all. This is not a company that is an unrestrained force for evil in the world.
However.
Microsoft have a history of abusing market dominance in order to exclude competitors. Many of the top management running the company at the time are still there, running the company today.
Perhaps there will be no repeat performances, but there are very good reasons for greeting rhetoric from Microsoft regarding their openness with some scepticism.
Inflammatory headline aside, let me be clear that I don’t hate Microsoft. But I can understand why there are those who do.
Someone not thrilled they're now owned by Microsoft?
That happened 6 years ago. Seems like a long time to hold grudge before attacking.
GitHub was previously owned by Corvids.
So they are poisoning GitHub copilot?