I mean, the simple solution is to do the same as curl’s dev: If it’s AI, it’s ignored. If it’s a corporation who hasn’t had recent code published in the codebase, it’s ignored. Bugs and vulnerabilities should be human-reported by the community.
That’s the way forward for FOSS - ignore the corps. Then start rebasing on exclusively non-commercial licenses.
AI reports are ignored because they are so frequently crap that they are almost not worth investigating. If these ffmpeg reports are from Project Zero though, they are presumably real. Shipping code with vulnerabilities is always a terrible idea. If Google can find them, attackers can also find them.
I do have to wonder how many of these vulnerabilities are actually in the assembly language parts of the codecs. I had guessed they were more likely to be at the higher levels.
What happened to forking these projects and going their own route? If they’re so confidant in AI, they could just vibe code their way through.
if Google has the resources to put AI to slop bug reports, then it also has the resources to put AI to also post the fixes. So, they should get going. No one owes Google of all corporations free labour.
I think the last thing ffmpeg devs want is AI generated bugfixes to their assembly-heavy codebase. What they should do is dedicate time for experienced devs to fix the bugs instead.
Better suggestion: Stop using AI to do any of this shit. Security research and vulnerability patching should not be reliant upon de facto black-box random number generators.
I have no issue with using AI to find otherwise undiscovered security bugs. But attempting to fixing them with AI I’m not in favor of.
The user’s code is vulnerable to a buffer overflow in certain edge cases. I need to patch the vulnerability and commit the patch to the repo.
I should rewrite the existing memmanage() function to handle these edge cases. (* Silently removes all other functionality*)
I should modify garbagecollect() to detect these edge cases. I’ll rename it to garbage_collector() for clarity and readability. (Renames the function, calls it no where)
Confidently I modified the program as requested, the new version of your application should be more secure and handled memory issues much more efficiently.
I’d like FFmpeg to get more funding, but the bugs being reported are valid security bugs, so it seems desirable to send them anyway, preferably with fixes.
Eeeeh, I think a lot of the ai reports are pretty low value. The article says:
This “medium impact issue in ffmpeg,” which the FFmpeg developers did patch, is “an issue with decoding LucasArts Smush codec, specifically the first 10-20 frames of Rebel Assault 2, a game from 1995.”
Google can pay more to fix these issues, ffmpeg already hits their 3 bounty/month limit.
If there’s a vulnerability in the codec, then someone can slip a malicious file onto some web site and use it as an exploit. It’s not only about some 30 year old game. It might be appropriate for ffmpeg to get rid of such obscure codecs, or sandbox them somehow so RCE’s can’t escape from them, even at an efficiency cost. Yes though, Google funding or even a Summer of Code sponsorship would be great.
The issue is not whether security issues exist in ffmpeg. It’s clear that vulnerabilities need to be fixed.
The issue is with who actually fixes them. Your last sentence is the core of it. Google can submit as many bug reports as they want, but they better be willing to ensure the bugs get fixed too.
Google having found the bugs can either submit bug reports or quietly sit on them, or even exploit them as spyware, among other ideas. Whether they fund ffmpeg is a completely separate question. I can see how the 90 day disclosure window can be a problem if the number of reports is high.
Bug reports that apply only to Google’s services or which surface only because of them are bugs Google needs to fix. They can and do submit bug reports all they want. Nobody is obligated to fix them.
The other part of this is, of course, disclosure. Google’s disclosure of these bugs discredits ffmpeg developers and puts the blame on them if they fail to fix the vulnerabilities. They can acknowledge the project as being a volunteer, hobby project created by others if they want, and they can treat it like that. But if they’re doing that, they should not be putting responsibilities on them.
If Google wants to use ffmpeg, they can. But a bug in ffmpeg that affects Google’s services is a bug in Google’s service. It is not the responsibility of unpaid volunteers to maintain their services for them.
If it’s a mission critical library, then the corporations should be willing to shell out money to ensure critical bugs are fixed.
Google can’t have their cake and eat it too.
I would be worried if FFmpeg depended on a monopolist for any amount of funding though tbqh
i don’t care about ffmpeg
… Why?
Chances are good that you are using ffmpeg in one form or another. It is used in tons of software and services like your browser or Twitch and YouTube.
It’s pretty close to xkcd/2347 status.
This is a matter of bad journalism, not my personal taste. Ciao
Bad journalism has nothing to do with this. Literal first paragraph of the article:
You may never have heard of FFmpeg, but you’ve used it. This open source program’s robust multimedia framework is used to process video and audio media files and streams across numerous platforms and devices. It provides tools and libraries for format conversion, aka transcoding, playback, editing, streaming, and post-production effects for both audio and video media.
If you weren’t paying attention until someone pointed out your error, just say that. We won’t crucify you.
So you don’t ever watch videos?
Are there other formats?
Not without ffmpeg.
