> Gitea is protected against both of these issues.
Is Gitea's immunity just incidental because it was written by a different person, or is it due to a deliberate defensive system that prevents such bug/mistake from occurring?
Very interested in knowing too, since the issues seems to not be related at all, or similar, so now this must mean a Gitea "project leader" would only say this if they have some sort of layer that doesn't require them to manually patch issues individually. Meaning, firewall? Would be weird if that's built-in into Gitea though... Hmm.
So not "Gitea is protected against both of these issues" but "Gitea fixed these issues earlier", which kind of feels like a less marketing-friendly version of what the Gitea employee said above.
Why people can't just talk clearly and not try to oversell whatever they're doing? It's a disease at this point.
i like how this is a side effect of a bunch of assorted changes in a commit and PR solely described as "Fix path resolving" making it hard for anyone running Gitea to even know this is a security fix
I'm not completely sure if this is supposed to be sincere, but it should be.
It's not uncommon practice to omit the security implications on public facing commit messages when fixing secirity issues, so as to not to draw attention until it's ready for distribution.
CVE AND release note not enough tipping off for you?
it is absolutely not on maintainers of projects to proactively notify those who've forked the project. clear and transparent notices are exactly the right approach
Is Gitea's immunity just incidental because it was written by a different person, or is it due to a deliberate defensive system that prevents such bug/mistake from occurring?