• Coelacanth@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    27 days ago

    The fediverse, also known as the open social web that includes Mastodon, Meta’s Threads, Pixelfed, and other apps (…)

    Mention Lemmy for once 😠

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      27 days ago

      Yeah, there’s also this:

      A more recent issue came about when Pixelfed’s creator, Daniel Supernault made the details of a vulnerability public before server operators had a chance to update, which would have left the fediverse vulnerable to bad actors, she says. (Supernault has already apologized publicly for his handling of the issue that had affected private accounts.)

      In the case of the Pixelfed issue, for instance, the Hachyderm Mastodon server, which has over 9,500 members, decided it needed to defederate (or disconnect from) other Pixelfed servers that hadn’t been updated in order to protect their users.

      It is weird to spend almost half the words in this, pretending that something in Pixelfed that wasn’t a problem on Pixelfed’s side was. This is the weirdest “vulnerability” in the world to pick if you want to pick one to hold up extensively as an example.

      • troed@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        27 days ago

        Regardless whether you want to pretend that not caring about Mastodon is a valid defense when implementing software using the ActivityPub protocol, that still doesn’t change anything regarding how Dansup handled the disclosure of the effects it had.

        • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          27 days ago
          1. This is nothing to do with ActivityPub. It’s to do with Mastodon’s custom implementation of “private” posts.
          2. Making it extremely clear to everyone that random server software can expose Mastodon’s “private” posts is absolutely the right way to handle disclosure here. Dan didn’t even try to do that, he just fixed the bug, but if he had made a big post saying “hey this is not my fault Mastodon private posts are not private, here’s full explanation about what’s going on” I think that would have been completely fine. This is not a “vulnerability” in the traditional sense like a buffer overflow, it’s just a design flaw in Mastodon which other softwares are by convention agreeing to cater to. I think the culture of security (and the level of clue in general) in the Fediverse has wandered into territory where “let’s all pretend that these posts are secure and get mad at anyone who reveals that they are not” is widely accepted now, but that doesn’t make it right.