Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

cse.umn.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 332 posts

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#61

Post by IncRnd »

alexeldeib wrote: post #53
IncRnd wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would argue that first requires investigation. Why do you think that enough of an investigation hasn't been performed in order to understand culpability? Thay already know what happened and want to learn why it was approved. That was what their comment said. Take a look at the actual PDF from the researchers , "On the Feasibility of Stealthily Introducing Vulnerabilities in Open-Source Software via Hypocrite Comm…

The prof overseeing the paper clarified that they initially did not seek IRB approval, and then received an IRB exemption [0]. I'd want to ask the IRB why they approved that, for starters. Maybe because they'd already done the research and hoped it would blow over, vs. the controversy of rejecting it when they'd already done the work? 0: https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc....

Yes, but that doesn't have bearing on my comment that was being referenced, that they didn't say what had happened was wrong.

Here is Ken Thompson's apropos paper from 1984. [0]

[0] https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#62

Post by winphone1974 »

tw04 wrote: post #25
mewse-hn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also think it's a good response but I think an apology would be in order - perhaps left out because it can be considered an admission of guilt. The way their statement stands they can investigate themselves and determine they did nothing wrong, we'll have to see what they say down the road.

>but I think an apology would be in order - perhaps left out because it can be considered an admission of guilt. I think an apology before they've had a chance to review everything that occurred would be rather empty, don't you? "I'm sorry you're upset"? I far prefer what they've stated they're going to do which is stop the activity they know about immediately, and to review how we got to this point. If, on the off c…

Maybe it's because I'm both Canadian and a tech manager but I've never worried about over apologizing if it's genuine. Same goes for saying thank you.

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#64

Post by dporter »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #44
evgen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far it has only been 'insiders' (FOSS-aware/friendly press and trade press a bit closer to the dev side than the management side) but the real question will be if it hits any large mainstream news sites by tomorrow. If it does not land until Friday then the story is over in terms of real consequences, but the PR team at UMN is probably hoping that fast damage control now can push anything major out a day or two wh…

Your tech department being blackballed from submitting Linux patches is a pretty embarrassing consequence. What else would happen? It's not like anyone will fine them.

Loss of grant money

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#65

Post by kapp_in_life »

h2odragon wrote: post #17

"We discovered some folks have been urinating into the campus coffee urns, in order research whether people will object to the flavor. We have told them to stop."

Allegedly. Of course the department will want to do their due diligence and investigate the accusations.

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#66

Post by simlevesque »

Zarathust wrote: post #47
Traster wrote: post #2

This is a great statement, they confirm they're aware of the issue, they acknowledge the concerns and they set out their intention to gather the full facts whilst suspending the operation of the research in the meantime. They also acknowledge the systematic way the need to deal with this. I hope their follow up is as thorough but I want to applaud this, it's a good approach.

If they really care about being banned, they'll have no choice but to follow thorough

Yeah and that's some heavy shade on a university. They'll lose good students if this is not fixed.

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#67

Post by lfc07 »

I am definitely against the line of research and hope someone acknowledges their fault. I also want to appeal that the issue it taking a political turn with a lot of unwarranted hate in forums and media mostly from people who are not part of kernel community. We are talking about young researchers and some possibly are misguided or innocent. Lets now make a political feast out of this just because we can.

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#68

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

baxter001 wrote: post #36

background for those unfamiliar with this: https://news.itsfoss.com/hypocrite-commits/ and Kangjie Lu's response: https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc....

The sheer entitlement of this:

> Does this project waste certain efforts of maintainers?

> Unfortunately, yes. We would like to sincerely apologize to the maintainers involved in the corresponding patch review process; this work indeed wasted their precious time. We had carefully considered this issue, but could not figure out a better solution in this study.

Here’s a better solution: don’t do it. You do not have a divine right to carry out this “research” no matter what.

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#69

Post by vzaliva »

Here is some background for those who are not familiar with the rules of academic research in the US. Usually, any experiments involving human subjects are subject to Univesity Institutional Review Board (IRB) [1] approval. IRB should evaluate both ethical and safety concerns. I recall having to jump through quite a few hoops just to do a simple touch screen gesture recognition test of a dozen willing fellow students. Apparently, the IRB approval step was skipped, or IRB failed to do its job in this case.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#70

Post by IncRnd »

xibalba wrote: post #52
IncRnd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was one thing that I found to be lacking from their statement. They never said that what they had done was wrong. The university already knows what the researchers did and are aware of the paper that was written about the subject by those same researchers. [1] [1] On the Feasibility of Stealthily Introducing Vulnerabilities in Open-Source Software via Hypocrite Commits -- https://github.com/QiushiWu/QiushiWu.gi…

This is what innocent until proven guilty looks like. I, for one, agree with the approach. I don't want to live in a world where people are fired and projects shutdown on the basis of allegations alone.

Don't jump to conclusions, and say I am guilty of something that I didn't write. I never said to fire people and shutdown projects based upon allegations alone. You may not have read the article for this comment page, but they admit that the action took place. The researchers, themselves, elsewhere admitted it took place.
Post reply on HN