I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write . It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me. I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
101–110 of 384 posts
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#102https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/apr/20/how-to-apologize/
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#103“They introduce kernel bugs on purpose” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26887670 - April 2021 (1902 comments)
UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26895510 - April 2021 (313 comments)
Others?
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
The latest patch adds a null check around a call to gss_release_msg. The commit message says “ The patch adds a check to avoid a potential double free.” According to other people in the conversation, this is already taken care of by reference counting ( https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20210407153458.GA28924@fie... ) and the patch apparently does nothing. The commit doesn’t reference any specific tool they’re using,…
A later message claims (outraged at being accused of submitting intentionally broken code to the kernel, despite having previously done exactly that) that the patch was generated by a static analysis tool. Ok, what tool? How did you run it? The message where he claims this has since been deleted (by who? Edit: probably never sent to the list, see below) but here is a message from Greg KH which quotes it: https://lore…
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
A later message claims (outraged at being accused of submitting intentionally broken code to the kernel, despite having previously done exactly that) that the patch was generated by a static analysis tool. Ok, what tool? How did you run it? The message where he claims this has since been deleted (by who? Edit: probably never sent to the list, see below) but here is a message from Greg KH which quotes it: https://lore…
My understanding is that the "not found" messages were never archived, rather than deleted. Likely they were not CC'd to the list, and the replies added the list back to CC.
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#106Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they had malice, but the breach of elemental ethics is just appalling. They show no remorse for being trusted and abusing that trust and good faith. They show no remorse for using human beings as involuntary guinea pigs. In sum, they show not remorse for doing wrong.
For me, it's not learning the lesson the first time around. I completely agree their experiment is unethical. However, it's not actually clear cut to most researchers the ethical bounds of their work, especially for study papers that's never really been explored before. Ethics in of itself is largely a active subtopic for many areas in CS, not only security research. AI is one area where qualifying potential harm to…
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#108Supply chain attacks are the security buzzthreat of day, at least since Solarwinds. Mucking about with the Linux kernel would be a really juicy target for nation-state actors. If you wanted to study this risk, how would you go about doing it? I haven't done kernel work since BSD4.3 so my opinion isn't particularly interesting. With that said, I would agree that the researchers were naive and their approach has caused…
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#109Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#110I really appreciate the apology and as they stated, its unconditional nature. Good. However, I find something very problematic. This quote shows it: "We have learned some important lessons about research with the open source community from this incident." This is something I don't like. This is not something about "research with the open source community". If anything, they should have learned something about treatin…
"If anything, they should have learned something about not treating human beings as persons and not as involuntary guinea pigs." Perhaps the entire "tech" industry needs to learn that lesson. Non-technical end users should be entitled to that same level of trust as nerds. I can download free open source code, extract a tarball and build the software without worrying too much about scanning through all the files first…