upvote
If you want an orderly fast global rollout you need to have the maintenance team and distributors working together.
reply
So if Wiz produced their own patch to PHP, and Calif produced their own (slightly different) patch, and OpenAI produced their own, which version should I use, as a user of PHP? Should I manually merge them? Is Calif's better than Wiz's? Is OpenAI's better than Calif's? Are they complementary?
reply
That does happen with downversion software. Red Hat may distribute a backported patch to some component which isn't the same as Canonical or Debian's.

Most users, who don't know the answer to your questions, rely on the distro to figure this out (and often pay good money for it).

reply
They already were in communication with each other. They could have come together and decided on one that mitigates the issues they've found.
reply
So anybody can just push out a new release of PHP?
reply
Yes, someone could have published a safe version for people to use for the 2 months to get the actual fix done.
reply
>Yes, someone could have published a safe version

this is basically the same as releasing a working exploit.

reply
And that's not a bad thing. If it was, the the logical conclusion would be to never publish the fix and don't preemptively patch before active exploitation.
reply
Yes it is.

Say I release a fix. I'm some rando but I go out to the world and say I fixed an issue with php. Use my version instead! Not telling you what I fixed, it's a secret, just trust me.

It will take, with LLM help, attackers a couple hours, tops, to reverse engineer my fix into active exploitation. Meanwhile, I'm some rando so no one's even heard of me, people who do hear don't automatically trust me to install my fix, so very few people have my fix. Meanwhile, the exploit is out there thanks to me and people are getting their sites hacked thanks to me.

That seems like a problem, no?

reply
How is what you are describing any different than what happened today? Except the vulnerabilities were also explained. You can say that sites are getting hacked right now due to them releasing the security update.

>I'm some rando so no one's even heard of me

Why do think people need to have heard of you. If you are reporting this issue directly to distro maintainers, security companies, hosting companies, etc first you can help use their names as part of the marketing push to raise awareness.

reply
> How is what you are describing any different than what happened today?

There was an official patch within a few hours. It probably would have been a lot longer.

And that was the screwup case. If today had gone correctly the official patch would have been out by the time the bug was public.

reply
And in the situation where they released a security patch 2 months ago, there would be a security patch before the bug was public.
reply
2 months ago there was no patch and no possibility of a very quick patch. Releasing details then would have been very bad.

If you mean they should have released the patch as soon as it was done, it's true that it would have been before the bug was public... for about five minutes. When a warning a day or two before patch release works, it lets admins prepare to patch immediately and/or shut down their servers before the release time.

Even with the leak, admins still had warning and it was better than an unwarned official patch drop. Which itself is better than an unwarned unofficial patch drop. Which itself is better than an unwarned drop of exploit details.

reply
Sort of by definition of open-source, yes. It's just that nobody downstream is likely to accept Joe Public's random fork of PHP.
reply
You're confusing PHP the product with PHP the codebase. The former is what is the only relevant part in the security world, where a product is synonymous with its vendor (even FOSS).
reply
I mean, it's all semantics at the end of the day.

The PHP maintainers have generated a certain amount of goodwill over their long service, which leads downstream consumers to trust their releases over every other packaging of "PHP the open source codebase".

Nonetheless, there are countless forks of that codebase, and there are other releases than the ones made by the PHP maintainers. Any particular downstream could switch to another source of releases if presented with a compelling enough reason.

reply
Did start writing software this week?
reply
Because...that's what the PHP security team does?

No one needs to use their work, or indeed PHP at all.

But that's why the PHP security team exists.

reply
What's the other choice? OpenAI et al could have developed a patch (for all we know they did) but you need the PHP team's participation to get it out. The alternative would be to fork the project and put up a forked release with the fix, which would have been incredibly disruptive.
reply
I'm glad they didn't do anything disruptive, then. Like wind the world's CIOs up into a frenzy of FUD and bring thousands of servers down in a coordinated panic attack synchronised to the minute.

Imagine if they had just patched the code and rolled it out with an advisory?! Oh my GOD! Won't someone think of Sam Altman and his huge pile of debt?!

reply
Pre AI, silently publishing a fix to a security vulnerability was considered bad practice.

Post AI, Its efficiency pre announcing the exploit to bad actors until the official disclosure.

You can just watch the diff log of every open source project with a small local model, and look for anything that touches buffers, function pointers, or shell integration.

It could be an hour between release of a fix before the exploit starts attacking servers.

Guess what also could happen within an hour? A coordinated Internet wide panic that shuts down all vulnerable servers.

---

We actually have a recent example. OpenAI hack.

An undisclosed vulnerability fix to a image formal lib; packages into debian 12 running in a docker, used by imagemagic, used by discourse running OpenAIs user forum.

reply
What would you have a security team for then?
reply
deleted
reply
To handle the official solution and drive long term changes to reduce similar security bugs from happening again. The current PHP security team does not seem capable to promptly release a fix, so having a community fix first seems preferable.

Mitigating a bug and developing a proper solution that is maintainable long term and supports future changes being made to the software take different amounts of time to develop.

reply