Linux 5.13 Reverts and Fixes the Problematic University of Minnesota Patches
1–10 of 121 posts
Re: Linux 5.13 Reverts and Fixes the Problematic University of Minnesota Patches
#2Just to clarify, all the proposals that were intentionally vulnerable and were really vulnerabilities were not accepted in the first place. However, that event triggered review of all University of Minnesota proposals, and that's what's being discussed here.
Re: Linux 5.13 Reverts and Fixes the Problematic University of Minnesota Patches
#3Just to clarify, all the proposals that were intentionally vulnerable and were really vulnerabilities were not accepted in the first place. However, that event triggered review of all University of Minnesota proposals, and that's what's being discussed here.
"ALL the proposals that were intentionally vulnerable and were really vulnerabilities were not accepted"
The thing is there is no way you can actually know that. So this is not some kind of revenge. This is rather a valid precaution.
Re: Linux 5.13 Reverts and Fixes the Problematic University of Minnesota Patches
#4Just to clarify, all the proposals that were intentionally vulnerable and were really vulnerabilities were not accepted in the first place. However, that event triggered review of all University of Minnesota proposals, and that's what's being discussed here.
"ALL the proposals that were intentionally vulnerable and were really vulnerabilities were not accepted" The thing is there is no way you can actually know that. So this is not some kind of revenge. This is rather a valid precaution.
>The thing is there is no way you can actually know that.
We do know since the researchers have told the linux community, the university and IEEE what those patches where. Please do not spread further misinformation about the case.
Please read the IEEE statement and the full Linux TAB review.
https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2021/downloads/2021_PC_St...
Re: Linux 5.13 Reverts and Fixes the Problematic University of Minnesota Patches
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
"ALL the proposals that were intentionally vulnerable and were really vulnerabilities were not accepted" The thing is there is no way you can actually know that. So this is not some kind of revenge. This is rather a valid precaution.
>The thing is there is no way you can actually know that. We do know since the researchers have told the linux community, the university and IEEE what those patches where. Please do not spread further misinformation about the case. Please read the IEEE statement and the full Linux TAB review. https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2021/downloads/2021_PC_St... https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/5/5/1244
Ah, so we're just supposed to trust the same people who tried introducing the vulnerabilities in the first place...
Re: Linux 5.13 Reverts and Fixes the Problematic University of Minnesota Patches
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
"ALL the proposals that were intentionally vulnerable and were really vulnerabilities were not accepted" The thing is there is no way you can actually know that. So this is not some kind of revenge. This is rather a valid precaution.
>The thing is there is no way you can actually know that. We do know since the researchers have told the linux community, the university and IEEE what those patches where. Please do not spread further misinformation about the case. Please read the IEEE statement and the full Linux TAB review. https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2021/downloads/2021_PC_St... https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/5/5/1244
"Please do not spread further misinformation about the case."
Let's assume that most people are giving their opinions to their best knowledge. We shall be careful when telling someone to stop spreading misinformation as this is how fascism starts. "I am right, you are wrong, stop talking!"
Re: Linux 5.13 Reverts and Fixes the Problematic University of Minnesota Patches
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The thing is there is no way you can actually know that. We do know since the researchers have told the linux community, the university and IEEE what those patches where. Please do not spread further misinformation about the case. Please read the IEEE statement and the full Linux TAB review. https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2021/downloads/2021_PC_St... https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/5/5/1244
Ah, so we're just supposed to trust the same people who tried introducing the vulnerabilities in the first place...
These are not independent malicious actors. These are researchers and students at a University. FUD does not serve any purpose here.
And for full disclosure, I'm one of the four authors of the original complaint to IEEE back in December about the research. I fully believe all the facts have been put forth and there is no reason to spread misinformation about the incident.
Re: Linux 5.13 Reverts and Fixes the Problematic University of Minnesota Patches
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
"ALL the proposals that were intentionally vulnerable and were really vulnerabilities were not accepted" The thing is there is no way you can actually know that. So this is not some kind of revenge. This is rather a valid precaution.
>The thing is there is no way you can actually know that. We do know since the researchers have told the linux community, the university and IEEE what those patches where. Please do not spread further misinformation about the case. Please read the IEEE statement and the full Linux TAB review. https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2021/downloads/2021_PC_St... https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/5/5/1244
Well, apparently they needed the bad publicity and "overreaction" to actually do that.
The fact that they didn't communicate _clearly_ with the kernel about exactly which patches this was about at the time when they announced their paper is extremely icky, and makes my sympathy for later misunderstandings/misinformation very limited.
Re: Linux 5.13 Reverts and Fixes the Problematic University of Minnesota Patches
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The thing is there is no way you can actually know that. We do know since the researchers have told the linux community, the university and IEEE what those patches where. Please do not spread further misinformation about the case. Please read the IEEE statement and the full Linux TAB review. https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2021/downloads/2021_PC_St... https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/5/5/1244
Ah, so we're just supposed to trust the same people who tried introducing the vulnerabilities in the first place...
Christ the snark is infuriating.
And pointless?
Re: Linux 5.13 Reverts and Fixes the Problematic University of Minnesota Patches
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
"ALL the proposals that were intentionally vulnerable and were really vulnerabilities were not accepted" The thing is there is no way you can actually know that. So this is not some kind of revenge. This is rather a valid precaution.
>The thing is there is no way you can actually know that. We do know since the researchers have told the linux community, the university and IEEE what those patches where. Please do not spread further misinformation about the case. Please read the IEEE statement and the full Linux TAB review. https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2021/downloads/2021_PC_St... https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/5/5/1244
This is awful:
> Based on the overall positive reviews and the recommendation of all reviewers to accept the work, the PC did not discuss this paper during the online PC meeting; [...] When, after acceptance, the authors tweeted the abstract of the work in November 2020, several people expressed concerns about human-subject research featured in this work. At that time, the PC chairs discussed these concerns [...]. As a result of these discussions, the PC chairs asked the authors to clarify the experiments with the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (IRB). We now acknowledge that this offer was a mistake
Basically: they did not review it and once it was published and people complained, they reacted. What's the point of the PC then?