Follow-up to Carrot disclosure: Forgejo

This is the classic response of a troll.

Previously:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47941590

Tangential: the favicon for dustri.org is from a really delightful (and hilariously dark) children's book called "I Want My Hat Back" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Want_My_Hat_Back

Missed the original. That seems like a reasonable way to highlight software that you believe is fundamentally insecure. Obviously you can't be on the hook to fix deep architectural issues yourself, but just submitting a single PR will be treated as "problem solved". Since most of any software contains some vulnerability, just saying "this software has an RCE" isn't actually a disclosure at all. The real issue is that the given vulnerability was (supposedly) easy to find, which if true is not something that will be fixed by targeting just that exploit chain, and needs deep changes to fix.

I get the criticism but also I don't get the criticism.

Thank fuck that someone found this bug and let them and the rest of us about it so we can protect ourselves. My forgejo instance was already running on my tailnet with no public exposure but had been considering public disclosure of it for some collaborators.

There has been a lot of talk around forgejo as an alternative to github for months now. To now understand that their security posture seems to be, 'like, yaknow, whatever...' is disturbing.

I think both parties can take this opportunity to mature. I understand that Forgejo is a community project, but community projects should have standards or very explicit disclaimers when it comes to security.