Just a reminder that most things nowadays that put greedy corporations into ‘a good position’ is detrimental to everyone else.
Comment on Nginx core developer quits project in security dispute, starts “freenginx” fork
JakenVeina@lemm.ee 9 months agoThere 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.
mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world 9 months ago
neclimdul@lemmy.world 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.
lemmyingly@lemm.ee 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
just_another_person@lemmy.world 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.