As the person who wrote the fix for this issue (and not the original code), I will just mention that I find this paragraph makes the author sound incredibly entitled:
Shamefully, the inetutils project hasn’t actually released a fixed version of their software (at least at the time of publishing).
The bug was reported on a public mailing list, which is sadly common nowadays [1]. After my workday, during which I was not able to review the report, I wrote a script to confirm the bug was real, since I was seeing way too many slop reports at the time. Then I sent a patch before going to bed [2]. A third party then graciously shared the patch on oss-security [3], which all distributions follow. There is no need to make a new release, which is harder for the distributions than simply applying a small patch.
Perhaps I am just unlucky in my interactions, but I feel like this entitlement is too common among software security people. Note that I see zero return in spending time working on Inetutils, and I find other projects I work on more interesting.
The not-so-silent minority hanging out on HN know that the true heroes are those who take the time and put in the effort, and then put even more effort to reply and post about it here.
> The not-so-silent minority hanging out on HN know that the true heroes are those who take the time and put in the effort, and then put even more effort to reply and post about it here.
We know that the entirety of the AI movement is built on top of open-source projects like Linux and all the terminal and command line utilities. And runs inside projects doing god's work (say to contain the agents) like QEMU etc.
AI lives inside the work of our open-source heroes and would be absolutely nowhere without the work of all those people.
> Thanks to all of our heroes, op included.
Definitely, thanks GP and thanks to all our heroes.
It's an unfortunate statement. And it does feel like it discredits you and the heroic efforts of those like you.
But this is probably forgiven as just sensationalism in writing, which is all too common. Not to excuse the author, but these types of writeups tend to drift into name calling and finger pointing a little too soon.
"Shamefully" is definitely the wrong word here, for sure.
you are right they are entitled brats. usually they cant write good code themselves and they purposefully look for very old or low traffic code to find things that are 'old' etc. to make stupid uninteresting AI generated blog posts.
i have not seen a decent writeup in one of these clickbait things these ppl push out.
just ignore these types of ppl. its fine to fix the bugs ofc but what i mean is, ignore their attitudes. its a kids' attitude to life they keep
> TLDR; bounds checking was missing leading to potential memory corruption.
... if you hold it just right, and let the light of the full moon shine through it on a particular day, while you send a carefully-crafted packet through the right brand of NIC over cables forged by long-forgotten smiths.
Maybe I'm in a generous mood, but I would credit the writer with making a joke about the content of the film they had just mentioned and subsequently show a screen cap of work the subtitles for a line about RISC being a significant future technology, rather than being that historically inaccurate in their own tech memory.
RISC desktop computers were common-ish in UK schools by then.
Of course if you count the 6502 as a RISC chip (if you squint a bit, Page Zero RAM sure does look like 256 8-bit registers to me!) then UK schools had RISC desktops for over a decade before then!
As the person who wrote the fix for this issue (and not the original code), I will just mention that I find this paragraph makes the author sound incredibly entitled:
The bug was reported on a public mailing list, which is sadly common nowadays [1]. After my workday, during which I was not able to review the report, I wrote a script to confirm the bug was real, since I was seeing way too many slop reports at the time. Then I sent a patch before going to bed [2]. A third party then graciously shared the patch on oss-security [3], which all distributions follow. There is no need to make a new release, which is harder for the distributions than simply applying a small patch.Perhaps I am just unlucky in my interactions, but I feel like this entitlement is too common among software security people. Note that I see zero return in spending time working on Inetutils, and I find other projects I work on more interesting.
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-inetutils/2026-03/msg... [2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-inetutils/2026-03/msg... [3] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/03/12/4
The not-so-silent minority hanging out on HN know that the true heroes are those who take the time and put in the effort, and then put even more effort to reply and post about it here.
Thanks to all of our heroes, op included.
> The not-so-silent minority hanging out on HN know that the true heroes are those who take the time and put in the effort, and then put even more effort to reply and post about it here.
We know that the entirety of the AI movement is built on top of open-source projects like Linux and all the terminal and command line utilities. And runs inside projects doing god's work (say to contain the agents) like QEMU etc.
AI lives inside the work of our open-source heroes and would be absolutely nowhere without the work of all those people.
> Thanks to all of our heroes, op included.
Definitely, thanks GP and thanks to all our heroes.
It's an unfortunate statement. And it does feel like it discredits you and the heroic efforts of those like you.
But this is probably forgiven as just sensationalism in writing, which is all too common. Not to excuse the author, but these types of writeups tend to drift into name calling and finger pointing a little too soon.
"Shamefully" is definitely the wrong word here, for sure.
> But this is probably forgiven as just sensationalism in writing
Why should we forgive sensationalism in writing at all?
you are right they are entitled brats. usually they cant write good code themselves and they purposefully look for very old or low traffic code to find things that are 'old' etc. to make stupid uninteresting AI generated blog posts.
i have not seen a decent writeup in one of these clickbait things these ppl push out.
just ignore these types of ppl. its fine to fix the bugs ofc but what i mean is, ignore their attitudes. its a kids' attitude to life they keep
Something tells me the NSA is none too pleased about the advent of LLMs.
Or is there a tradeoff?
Fewer ancient holes like this for their hackers but wide open access to anyone who installs codex or claude code?
I really dislike articles that blow out of proportion the technical details. TLDR; bounds checking was missing leading to potential memory corruption.
> TLDR; bounds checking was missing leading to potential memory corruption.
... if you hold it just right, and let the light of the full moon shine through it on a particular day, while you send a carefully-crafted packet through the right brand of NIC over cables forged by long-forgotten smiths.
> "1994" > "RISC was a distant dream"
Ahem
Maybe I'm in a generous mood, but I would credit the writer with making a joke about the content of the film they had just mentioned and subsequently show a screen cap of work the subtitles for a line about RISC being a significant future technology, rather than being that historically inaccurate in their own tech memory.
> In fact, this vulnerability was born so long ago (way back in 1994)
> That was so long ago that RISC was still a distant dream.
Yeah ARM would like to have a word with you. I'd been using RISC on the desktop for about five years by then and I was not an early adopter.
Needs a (March 19) (I know HN only does this for years, but this being about vulnerabilities…)
FYI all signalling is in-band signalling
And all signals are analogue, if you're paying enough attention to the transients ;-)
A surprisingly long article for a one-line fix the authors didn’t send.
Since AI is redacting, a lot of articles are long and boring to read with a lot of useless details.
If you're going to rip off xkcd pictures, I feel it'd be polite at least credit and/or link the original.
RISC was not a distant dream in 1994 LMAO.
at that time even Intel had a RISC cpu (i960)
RISC desktop computers were common-ish in UK schools by then.
Of course if you count the 6502 as a RISC chip (if you squint a bit, Page Zero RAM sure does look like 256 8-bit registers to me!) then UK schools had RISC desktops for over a decade before then!
That made me spit out my tea. The prose was insulting.
I stopped reading on that line. The entire text is coming off as insulting, entitled and smug.