Not to defend the research, but I've been hearing for years that it would be difficult to introduce bugdoors into the Kernel.
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Conversation
It would be difficult for an unknown individual or unknown/untrusted organisation.
It's less difficult for a respected university willing to sacrifice its reputation.
3
1
15
The patches for the study were submitted from Gmail addresses. It wasn't tied to the university and didn't even use university email addresses. I don't know why people keep repeating this misinformation, including kernel developers.
1
2
That's not one of the emails involved in the study. It was an inaccurate claim. I suggest not spreading misinformation and libel.
Kernel maintainers being dishonest and misrepresenting good faith patches from students as part of a past study makes the project look bad.
1
2
I trust them more than you and more than anyone attempting to commit hypocrite patches to the Linux kernel.
lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH+z
1
1
Again, the patches involved in that study were submitted from Gmail addresses. The study is a past event. You're linking a recent patch from a student not involved in it. It's misinformation and is dishonest. It is making Linux look increasingly bad in this situation, not better.
2
1
The "past event" taints everything going forward and for obvious good reason.
1
Kernel maintainers being consistently dishonest taints the project. Misrepresenting what happened and making unjustified accusations against good faith contributions from students isn't a good look.
Slandering students there for something they didn't do really doesn't look good.
2
1
Someone showed serious systemic issues far beyond near non-existent code review and their reaction is attacking people not involved in the unethical study.
Misdirection and misinformation are a common approach by kernel maintainers to handling security issues but not a good one.