I applaud the quick action and implementing a path forward. We all need to fend for ourselves, because the US government cannot be counted on anymore.
Which…is absolutely wild. The government should absolutely be funding vulnerability research. If anything so that they can exploit them.
But I suspect they are taking the corporate approach. The foundation is going to do the research anyway and publish it widely. Just take advantage while adding nothing of value in return.
God I hate this fucking timeline.
Even corporations understand the value of having a seat at the table. A significant reason for corporate sponsorship of standards groups and such is so that if it comes up, they have a person there who can argue for their interests.
Not even in an interesting or corrupt way.
“Our engineers think it would be better to do it this way, any objections?” And then everyone talks about it.Leaving means you only get to use what others put together. If your needs don’t fit you just have to cope.
Corporations love getting stuff for free, but if all it takes to solve a technical problem is cash, that’s great too. Cash is a better way to solve a technical problem than time and engineers.
Not even in an interesting or corrupt way. “Our engineers think it would be better to do it this way, any objections?” And then everyone talks about it.
And this was the mental roadblock I hit trying to imagine a world without lobbyists.
As if we could ignore every voice with some connection to a profit motive (ignoring thousands of experts), etc
Well said!
Yeah, the lobbying question is a complicated one.
In an ideal world it would be much closer to how the standards committees work. The issue isn’t people sharing their opinions and desires for how the system should work, it’s when they use inequitable means to bias the decision. My industry, security, has lobbied for official guidelines on security requirements for different situations. Makes it easier to tell hospitals they can’t have nurses sharing login credentials: government says that’s bad, and now your insurance says it’s a liability.
The problem is that lobbying too often comes with stuff like a “we’re always hiring like minded people at our lobbying firm, if you happen to find yourself in the position to do so, give us a call.”.
It’s too easy for people with a lot of money to make their voices more heard.It’s not that the wealthy and business interests should be barred from sharing opinions with legislators, it’s that “volume” shouldn’t be proportional to money. My voice as a person who lives near a river should be comparable to that of the guy who owns the car wash upstream when it comes to questions of how much we care about runoff going into the river.
👏
Exactly. We need to get money and promises out of lobbying. You should merely be allowed to explain the problems or benefits of a bill/law, realistic consequences, and proposed solutions.
Lobbyists aren’t inherently bad. The problem is lack of transparency and controls. Without effective controls of course a corporation with millions to spend will always have the upper hand over some NGO that lobbies for the common good.
If you listen closely, you can hear the heads of NSA people banging on their desks because of the funding stop
No one said they weren’t funding vulnerability research anymore. They just weren’t going to share the information.
The “Contain, Verify, Explain Foundation”, dedicated to the study of and protection against cyber-anomalies
I’m glad they were thinking ahead.
I’m honestly not totally sure what to think about this one, though I recognise that it’s a big shift/likely a negative overall result.
Reason I’m humming and hawing, is that there are lots of expensive cybersecurity type ‘things’ that rely on the CVE system, without explicitly paying in to that system / supporting it directly, from what I recall / have seen. Take someone like Tenable security, who sell vulnerability scanners that extensively use/integrate with the CVE/NVD databases… companies pay Tenable huge amounts of money for those products. Has Tenable been paying anything into the ‘shared’ public resource pool? How about all those ‘audit’ companies, who charge like 10-30k per audit for doing ‘vulnerability / penetration tests’.
IT Security has been an expensive/profitable area for a long time, while also relying on generally public/shared resources to facilitate a lot of the work. Maybe an ‘industry’ funded consortium is the more appropriate way to go.
What a nonsense.
CVE was used by thousands and thousands of security professionals and organizations, companies are just small part of it. Companies contributed a lot with their own research and vulnerabilities they found and reported into CVE. It was useful because it made it easier to categorize and catalogue vulnerabilities and it made everyone’s life easier. Not just companies’. It made it easier for Linux distros as well. And so on, and so on. Do Americana really think everything needs to be run as a company and for profit?
I guess we’ll now go back to the “good old days” of sharing bugs on Bugtraq.
I still can’t comprehend that Americans voted that idiot into White House. Again. Damage he is doing is out of this world and will only become apparent in years to come. Truly incredible.
Do Americana really think everything needs to be run as a company and for profit?
Unfortunately, many do. It’s fuck’n baffling as to why.
I still can’t comprehend that Americans voted that idiot into White House.
Well Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran (to name a few) with the assistance tech-bro billionaires like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have been waging an information war against the US for well over a decade. All that time, money and effort is finally paying off.
Yeah, but that’s sort of the point I was making… it was a data repository used by “thousands and thousands” of security professionals and organizations. So people who were generating revenue off of the service. I mean, they’re professionals, not hobbyists / home users.
I’m not an American, but in terms of everything running like a company/for profit, I’d say that its best if things are sustainable / able to self-maintain. If the US cutting funding means this program can’t survive, that’s an issue. If it has value to a larger community, the larger community should be able to fund its operation. There’s clearly a cost to maintaining the program, and there are clearly people who haven’t contributed to paying that cost.
In terms of going back to whatever, the foundation involved is likely to sort out alternative funding, though potentially with decreased functionality (it sounds like they had agreements to pay for secondary vulnerability report reviews, which will likely need to get scaled back). Maybe they’ll need to add in a fee for frequent feed pulls, or something similar. I wouldn’t say it’s completely toast or anythin just yet.
The CVE system protects everyone that uses computers. It is a public service that forms the core of cybersecurity in the US and many other places. It does not cost the database any more money if people use it to provide services to clients.
Letting a private corporation take it over and put it behind a paywall now means that security, like so many other things, will only be available to people with money. It will make software and hardware more expensive by adding yet another license fee or subscription if you want software that gets security updates.
In addition, a closed database is just less useful. This system works because when one person notifies the system of an exploit then every other person now knows. That kind of system is much higher quality if you have more people that are able to access it.
An industry being created and earning money by providing cybersecurity services shows how useful such a system is for everyone. There are good paying jobs that depend on this data being freely available. New startups only need to provide service, they don’t need to raise the funds to buy into the security database because it is a public service. They also pay taxes (a significant amount if they’re charging $30,000 per audit), more than enough profit for the government to operate a database.
Shame they’re still based in the US.
Do they have a mastodon to stay up to date with?
As it should have been.
deleted by creator
people will always mess stuff up. Government is just the group of people you have a say in.
When the public good gets messed up, I’d rather it be by the people I can vote out than by the people who only answer to shareholders.
I just don’t understand the persistent belief that a profit motive will magically make something more aligned with the public good.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
So you want it to be run like it is today, but with less money? Do you think they’re going to spread whatever incompetence you see them having via funding?
Usually when people celebrate the removal of government from a public service it’s because they think it should be arranged to turn a profit.
You didn’t list your stance on every issue in your comment so I can only assume that you have the rest of the beliefs that I’ve always seen go with that opinion.
deleted by creator
Cool. You wrote an opinion that perfectly matched the opinion of a particular demographic that’s common on the site, and are now very offended that no one knew you were someone less common.
Which also entirely draws the conversation away from you saying it’s good that the government pulled funding from an organization that’s doing something good because government messes everything up.They’re already a non-profit. Why are you upset that they got money from the government? Wouldn’t the ideal to you be an NGO that got money without being under government control, and was therefore free from business influence as well?
Linux is a great example. It’s backed by a non-profit foundation, under the direction of mostly corporate advocates. That’s what people talk about when they talk about a non-profit being beholden to corporate money.
The shape of Linux has steadily been pushed towards being more and more focused on server and data center operations, since that’s what the people in charge of funding allocation care about, and that’s what they’ll direct their parent organizations to contribute developers to working on.Your government sucks. I get that. It doesn’t mean I don’t expect more from mine, and it doesn’t mean that I reject the notion that I should have say in the management of the things around me.
The NGO that you envision will do a better job managing the drainage where I live doesn’t answer to me, and I have no recourse if they mess up and flood my house.I’d like something like the NGO you envision, but with public accountability. This is often called a “government”.
deleted by creator
