News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Chef-sugar stands its grounds against ICE contract by thiefmeister on Monday September 23, 2019 @10:39PM (#21055979)
They have some update. (looks like they are backtracking their original statement.)

https://blog.chef.io/2019/09/23/an-important-update-from-che...

Re:Chef-sugar stands its grounds against ICE contract by montypythonxxx on Thursday September 19, 2019 @09:59PM (#21022647)
Chef's official stance remains unchanged. Their blogpost: https://blog.chef.io/2019/09/19/chefs-position-on-customer-e...
Re:Chef-sugar stands its grounds against ICE contract by pnako on Thursday September 19, 2019 @11:27PM (#21023090)
> For context, we began working with DHS-ICE during the previous administration

That should have been Chef's only response, really. (That, and they still need to explain how a former developer somehow managed to break something.)

Re:Chef-sugar stands its grounds against ICE contract by LIV2 on Friday September 20, 2019 @02:06AM (#21023699)
The most depressing part is that people will only care about what ICE are doing until the next election
Re:Chef-sugar stands its grounds against ICE contract by pnako on Thursday September 19, 2019 @11:15PM (#21023031)
> Earlier today, a former Chef employee removed several Ruby Gems, impacting production systems for a number of our customers.

That's some horrendous infosec. Why would ICE or anyone use this? Can't Chef use, err, Chef or something like that to remove all credentials as soon as employees leave the organization?

Re:Chef-sugar stands its grounds against ICE contract by mwarkentin on Friday September 20, 2019 @09:16AM (#21026307)
It was his own gem, hosted under his own account, not Chef's. It's apparently just relied on by almost the entire Chef ecosystem, including Chef's own systems.
Re:Chef-sugar stands its grounds against ICE contract by thiefmeister on Thursday September 19, 2019 @09:18PM (#21022443)
Quite rare to find projects standing its own ground .