also people should search the issues on github, a few of these questions already have issues filed with discussions in them, put a thumbs up on a github issue if it’s something you want
Those didn’t completely break federation, they just had some issues with a few services besides lemmy. They’re addressed now, but federation compatibility will always be an ongoing task as new services get added and existing ones change their activitypub responses.
As far as I’m aware the most widely-accepted standard for responsible disclosure is 90 days. This is a little different, since that’s normally between businesses and includes the time needed to develop a solution; it’s not typically aimed at federated or self-hosted applications rolling out an already-created patch. On the one hand, granting them that extra time to upgrade seems reasonable. On the other, wouldn’t anyone wanting to exploit a vulnerability be able to reverse-engineer it pretty easily by reading the git history?
The 90 days disclosure you’re referencing, which I believe is primarily popularized by Google’s Project Zero process, is the time from when someone discovers and reports a vulnerability to the time it will be published by the reporter if there is no disclosure by the vendor by then.
The disclosure by the vendor to their users (people running Lemmy instances in this case) is a completely separate topic, and, depending on the context, tends to happen quite differently from vendor to vendor.
As an example, GitLab publishes security advisories the day the fixed version is released, e.g. …gitlab.com/…/critical-security-release-gitlab-16….
Some vendors will choose to release a new version, wait a few weeks or so, then publish a security advisory about issues addressed in the previous release. One company I’ve frequently seen this with is Atlassian. This is also what happened with Lemmy in this case.
As Lemmy is an open source project, anyone could go and review all commits for potential security impact and to determine whether something may be exploitable. This would similarly apply to any other open source project, regardless of whether the commit is pushed some time between releases or just before a release. If someone is determined enough and spends time on this they’ll be able to find vulnerabilities in various projects before an advisory is published.
The “responsible” alternative for this would have been to publish an advisory at the time it was previously privately disclosed to admins of larger instances, which was right around the christmas holidays, when many people would already be preoccupied with other things in their life.
It adds another view to Registration Applications to show only denied applications, helpful for identifying spam applications and rule circumventers. I know a few people have been asking for something similar to this.
Lemmy is one of the few ones platforms that attempts to preserve vote and mod action privacy, to prevent harassment, and encourage ppl to vote honestly. Several other platforms just let any user see who voted, which isn’t the best idea since it’s been shown that ppl are less likely to be honest if they know that their votes are public.
The main reason I added it for admins, is bc a lot of ppl have been understandably upset by downvote-stalkers, or those who downvote with multiple accounts.
Like anything, there’s the possibility for abuse, but at least by limiting it to admins only, we can prevent a lot of potential harassment that other platforms are currently allowing.
I can’t speak for others, but I still seem to be experiencing issues with federation. I’ve got a comment in here that isn’t showing up on other instances.
Yeah that’s my theory. I think the workers were busy catching up on the whole backlog of all the comments and posts that had built up over the ~3 week period it wasn’t working.
announcements
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.