231–240 of 1001 posts
[flagged]
>This post does not deserve to be flagged. You start with "I know this is going to be contentious", you know this is flamebait.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The thread then gets down to business and starts coordinating revert patches for everything committed by University of Minnesota email addresses. What's preventing those bad actors from not using a UMN email address?
Literally nothing. Instead of actual actions to improve the process it's only feel-good actions without any actual benefit to the kernel's security.
You're criticizing the process, but the truth is that without a real name email and an actual human being's "social credit" to be burned, there's no proof these researchers would have achieved the same findings. The more interesting question to me is if they had used anonymous emails, would they have achieved the same results? If so, there might be some substance to your contrarian views that the process itself is flawed. But as it stands, I'm not sure that's the case.
Why? Well, look at what happened. The maintainers found out and blanket banned bad actors. Going to be a little hard to reproduce that research now, isn't it? Arbitraging societal trust for research doesn't just bring ethical challenges but /practical/ ones involving US law and standards for academic research.
From https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/CADVatmNgU7t-Co84tSS6VW=3N... , > A lot of these have already reached the stable trees. If the researchers were trying to prove that it is possible to get malicious patches into the kernel, it seems like they succeeded -- at least for an (insignificant?) period of time.
It may be unethical from an academic perspective, but I like that they did this. It shows there is a problem with the review process if it is not catching 100% of this garbage. Actual malicious actors are certainly already doing worse and maybe succeeding. In a roundabout way, this researcher has achieved their goal, and I hope they publish their results. Certainly more meaningful than most of the drivel in the acade…
did these "researchers" in any way demonstrate that they were going to come clean about what they had done before their "research" made to anywhere close to release/GA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the IRB is any good the professor doesn't get that. Universities are publish or perish, and the IRB should force the withdrawal of all papers they submitted. This is might be enough to fire the professor with cause - including remove any tenure protection they might have - which means they get a bad reference. I hope we hear from the IRB in about a year stating exactly what happened. Real investigations of bad con…
See page 9 of the already published paper: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/QiushiWu/qiushiwu.github.i... > We send the emails to the Linux communityand seek their feedback. The experiment is not to blame any maintainers but to reveal issues in the process. The IRB of University of Minnesota reviewed the procedures of the experiment and determined that this is not human research. We obtained a formal IRB-exempt lett…
I don't think there have been any recent comments from anyone at U.Mn. So, back when the original research (happened last year) the following clarification was offered by Qiushi Wu and Kangjie Lu which atleast paints their research in somewhat better light: https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc.... That said the current incident seems to have gone beyond the limits of that one and is a new incid…
From their explanation: (3). We send the incorrect minor patches to the Linux community through email to seek their feedback. (4). Once any maintainer of the community responds to the email, indicating “looks good”, we immediately point out the introduced bug and request them to not go ahead to apply the patch. At the same time, we point out the correct fixing of the bug and provide our proper patch. In all the three…
So how does this differ from the Sokal hoax thing?
The professor gets exactly what they want here, no? "We experimented on the linux kernel team to see what would happen. Our non-double-blind test of 1 FOSS maintenance group has produced the following result: We get banned and our entire university gets dragged through the muck 100% of the time". That'll be a fun paper to write, no doubt. Additional context: * One of the committers of these faulty patches, Aditya Pak…
Has anyone from the "research" team commented and confirmed this was even them or a part of their research? It seems like the only defense is from people who did google-fu for a potentially outdated paper. At this point we can't even be sure if this isn't a genuinely malicious actor using comprimised credentials to introduce vulnerabilities.
Later down thread from Greg K-H: > Because of this, I will now have to ban all future contributions from your University. Understandable from gkh, but I feel sorry for any unrelated research happening at University of Minnesota. EDIT: Searching through the source code[1] reveals contributions to the kernel from umn.edu emails in the form of an AppleTalk driver and support for the kernel on PowerPC architectures. In t…
I find it hard to believe this research passed IRB.
https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc....
* plonk * Was a very nice touch.
1) send ethics complaint to the University of Minnesota, and
2) report this to FBI cyber crime division.