> Except it can do also a lot of other bad things, and its too much to review. So in the end you trust the tree owner, and he blindly trust a zillion people.
> I actually have zero good solution to this, but it'll be interesting when it is used for a large attack.
The only solution is intelligence and prudence on the part of the tree owners. Large software systems need to ultimately be in the hands of smart and wise people. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case here.
I linked Ken's paper because it's related. His conclusion is that it doesn't matter how smart the users or maintainers are if somebody wants to install a clever bug. Smart and clever people can still choose not to accept contributions from people they don't know.
basically they have to earn trust before they can do this
i actually have some half solutions, that many use. one of these is code signing (digital signing or simple "signed off by" from an email that you believe belongs to the owner, even thus the first is stronger)
this means, the person may eventually do bad stuff, after earning your trust. OK. But if that's ever detected, at least you can trace back to him.
Didn't say I was one of them. Enjoy your strawman. Personally, I prefer a bit more flavor. Though your implicit ad-hominem tastes a bit juicy.
Writing a package manager is actually really serious business. This package manager runs under user credentials and is expected to modify the filesystem. You can't sandbox around those requirements. No amount of whinging avoids that. This story is one of many examples why you can't take it trivially.
If you're afraid to point out incompetence - and where it is most dangerous - you won't know it when you see it. And it will bite you, hard.
I upvoted your response because on one hand I do think you are correct in all of what you are saying.
But your previous post can be interpreted as an implication that the people themselves are neither smart, nor wise. A somewhat harsh attack. I re-read it with more emphasis on the "here" part of the sentence and it sounded a bit more as though you are saying that in this instance the people were not wise.
Pointing out incompetence is helpful, but it's also very useful to do so in a way that attempts to minimize the chance of an extremely negative interpretation.
Obviously this was an epic fail deserving of your original derision, but I can't help but be struck by the irony in your complaint of ad-hominem after what you wrote.
His comment wasn't an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be 'this person isn't smart and wise, so his decision's are wrong'. The poster's comment was of the following implicitt form:
* These sort of packages should be run by people who are smart and wise
* The fact that this happened suggests that this person is not smart and wise
* It is unfortunate that he is running a project used by many people.
It's perfectly valid to criticise a person (or a person's fitness for a responsibility) based on their actions. An ad hominem is the opposite - it is criticising a persons actions or arguments based on who the person is (rather than the actions or arguments themselves).
> I actually have zero good solution to this, but it'll be interesting when it is used for a large attack.
The only solution is intelligence and prudence on the part of the tree owners. Large software systems need to ultimately be in the hands of smart and wise people. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case here.