Re:Open Source Security Foundation
by bluegate010 on Sunday March 28, 2021 @12:07AM
(#26607857)
It sounds like, unless someone is an owner or maintainer of a critical open-source project, the blog post isn't necessarily calling for that person's deanonymization. For projects that are both critical and owned/maintained by anonymous entities, I think it's reasonable for an organization to think twice before taking a dependency on such projects, given the sort of anonymous attacks mentioned in the article.
Disclaimer: opinions are my own, not my employer's (Google)
Re:Open Source Security Foundation
by some_furry on Sunday March 28, 2021 @01:54AM
(#26608314)
> I think it's reasonable for an organization to think twice before taking a dependency on such projects, given the sort of anonymous attacks mentioned in the article.
I'd argue that "thinking twice" should be the standard bar for all open source dependencies, not a discrimination levied towards anonymous or pseudonymous developers.
(Though, to be fair, I doubt Google would ever use any of my code. I know your cryptographers; they don't need me to contribute lol.)
For example, I don't want anyone to know my real name. I'm not up to any mischief (criminal or otherwise), I just want the separation of identities. There isn't a single entity on Earth that I'd feel safe delegating this knowledge with if I could avoid it.