Oh my God, it's OSC 8 again. Because copy-pasting an URI from the terminal window is so 2003, and goodness gracious, having to look at an actual URL instead of an arbitrarily inaccurate description of it? That's, like, 1993. When I wrote my variant of ansi2html, I aggressively stripped out every C0 and C1, and all of the possible APC/DCS/OSC/PM sequences.
Meanwhile, internal links between different parts of a man page still don't exist (unless you use GNU Info but seriously, I'd rather use lynx on a folder of HTML files instead).
I would prefer to do a super proper disclosure with coordinated release dates and everything. My first submitting to SourceHut security ML ended up making the vuln existence somewhat public before upstream ever knew.
I love sourcehut, and I can't really think anything to replace it. But here's my shot. It's a popular myth that independently from the project size, someone should always take the main stream product in the field than small projects because most of the people would use the main stream product and there's an higher chance that vulnerabilities get already exploited/recognized/fixed. Is that true or not? TL;DR: in the evaluation of such products (sourcehut but even self hosted stuff), should we also take account about the project history and the exposition to threats?
Oh my God, it's OSC 8 again. Because copy-pasting an URI from the terminal window is so 2003, and goodness gracious, having to look at an actual URL instead of an arbitrarily inaccurate description of it? That's, like, 1993. When I wrote my variant of ansi2html, I aggressively stripped out every C0 and C1, and all of the possible APC/DCS/OSC/PM sequences.
Meanwhile, internal links between different parts of a man page still don't exist (unless you use GNU Info but seriously, I'd rather use lynx on a folder of HTML files instead).
nitpick: typo "Vulnerabile" :)
Really commendable work fixing up the upstream python project. I don't think there's anything to be embarrassed about in the timeline.
I would prefer to do a super proper disclosure with coordinated release dates and everything. My first submitting to SourceHut security ML ended up making the vuln existence somewhat public before upstream ever knew.
haven’t been properly rickrolled in years, wasn’t expecting that!
You're welcome!
I love sourcehut, and I can't really think anything to replace it. But here's my shot. It's a popular myth that independently from the project size, someone should always take the main stream product in the field than small projects because most of the people would use the main stream product and there's an higher chance that vulnerabilities get already exploited/recognized/fixed. Is that true or not? TL;DR: in the evaluation of such products (sourcehut but even self hosted stuff), should we also take account about the project history and the exposition to threats?
HN hug of death, strikes again.
That might have been DNS, the website itself is on sourcehut pages. Should be fine now for a while.