News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Finding Critical Open Source Projects by vlovich123 on Friday December 11, 2020 @12:46PM (#25388443)
Have you heard of the WWII bullet holes problem that Wald solved? This project seems to fall into the trap that Wald’s colleagues fell into. The more popular a project the more critical it becomes when that’s not actually the case. You want to know where the bullet holes you don’t see are because that’s the thing that’s going to take you out. All the bullet holes you’re seeing and surviving are not great but survivable.

Critical to me means “what’s the thing I have to pay attention to or I’ll suffer consequences”. Having a dependency on a non-popular crate is definitely an increasing score of criticality for that dependency. I may have misread but the fatal error in the metric to me is that popularity of a project increases its criticality when it should decrease. A popular project with lots of contributors means it has lots of stake holders already and a way to successfully manage that. What you want is the small independent projects that popular projects depend on. In other words, what’s the smallest, hardest to notice malicious change I can make in the supply chain of software development to enact the most disruptive change?

Re:Finding Critical Open Source Projects by rhencke on Friday December 11, 2020 @01:04PM (#25388658)
Your last sentence nails it:

> What’s the smallest, hardest to notice malicious change I can make in the supply chain of software development to enact the most disruptive change?

Re:Finding Critical Open Source Projects by abharya on Friday December 11, 2020 @01:35PM (#25389007)
This is still an early project to start somewhere.

We are working on this problem as well. Trying to identify dependency trees and which smaller projects are the most widely used (indirect deps) and will impact the most on the critical projects in the list.

Re:Finding Critical Open Source Projects by vlovich123 on Friday December 11, 2020 @04:54PM (#25391698)
Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate this work and it’s super important if you get it right. I’m worried the first step is drastically in the wrong philosophical direction as far as the metric itself goes.

If you’re just proving out the tech then do that but the current publishing of the most “critical” projects is laughably wrong (as I’m sure you’ve heard from the comments on the page). The project isn’t a dead end but any attempt to use the data right now to drive decisions is a lost cause. Maybe you have some secret sauce that makes it work better for internal Google projects but if that’s the case that methodology should be published as well so that people can get an understanding of how Google uses this more effectively.

I’m just contrasting this to a paper Google published recently about how to measure uptime more effectively in cloud. Every step of that paper was eminently approachable and didn’t have any obvious philosophical flaws that stood out to me (we can argue about them but any potential arguments were called out).

Again, I applaud the attempt. This is a super important problem and trying to tackle it is laudable. Getting the right metrics is crucial and this is being released far too early with a presentation that makes it seem far more complete than it is.