There's something unnerving about this blog post.<p>Paraphrasing: "The world's top security researches and AI labs are pouring all their VC money into finding as many security issues in curl as possible". At the same time, we know that curl is run by volunteers that needs to handle all of this. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do security review of open source libraries, just saying that this situation puts a lot of pressure on the maintainers.<p>The second unnerving thing is that many of the listed vulnerabilites target embedded libcurl; a library with a much slower update cycle. I'm guessing that many of the listed bugs are still in active use, inside the thousands of applications that use curl internally. Another tricky situation.<p>Both of these stand in contrast to the posts "braggy" style of "we found the most vulnerabilities of all!!!".
Another way to read it is that the public now have access to resources on a scale that was formerly the domain of three letter government agencies throwing millions of dollars to hire humans to do this work. While in the short-term it's painful for maintainers, in the long-term we all end up safer.
Would be great if people would brag with quotes and feedback from the maintainers. I'd be more interested to see that. Instead our model found x, I want something that really helps the maintainers.
> I'm not saying that we shouldn't do security review of open source libraries, just saying that this situation puts a lot of pressure on the maintainers.<p>This is true, and worth saying, but it is also a problem of the OSS philosophy. All software is used at your own risk, so if maintainers want their software used they need to keep up, and the (true) promise of "more eyeballs means more secure software" has this downside built in.