Last week, I wrote about how Joshua Aaron's ICEBlock app, which allows people to anonymously report ICE sightings within a 5-mile radius, is – unfortunately, and despite apparent good intentions – activism theater. This was based on Joshua's talk at HOPE where he made it clear that he isn't taking the advice
It’s bogus security concern and seems like a smear campaign because the dev did not respond “properly”.
Anybody who has set up a webserver on debian or redhat will tell you that apache versions mean nothing. They backport fixes and security patches to seemingly ancient versions of Apache, and then every security scanner will tell you they are vulnerable while actually they are not and have been fixed for years.
I had to fight the security team at my old job because of this very same thing. Just check the redhat/debian release logs for apache and you’ll see the CVE have been fixed.
Doing a whole blog post to shit on the project, then make a bogus security claim while giving them a way too short notice (1.5h is insane) to fix before going public is in extremely bad taste. I totally understand the dev blocking the guy as he contributed nothing here.
Edit: From the blog:
Tell me you don’t know anything about security without saying it. Anybody worth their salt will know backporting exists.
This is just trying to smear the dev while looking like a fool. Anybody capable of opening the dev tools and checking the header would see the same thing. Guess what? Lots of bots do that already and automatically try known CVEs.
Second edit: not trying to rub people the wrong way, but commenters here should really stop giving their opinions on stuff they don’t understand. Yes security is important, but no, an older apache version in the header is not an issue.
Two things can be right at the same time:
Idk anything about the author, but besides the apache version thing, he did bring up some very valid criticisms. The previous article they wrote is worth a read, or at the very least, it’s worth watching the snippets of that HOPE interview. It’s obvious the developer is a hardcore bullshitter, which is the most charitable interpretation giving him the benefit of the doubt (without speculation about malicious intent)