Frenck here, I'm the one who replied on that issue.<p>My replies there were more dismissive than they should have been. My apologies. I've posted a follow-up on the issue.<p>As it turns out, the check can already be turned off after all:<p><pre><code> ha security options --pwned=false
</code></pre>
It has been part of the Supervisor for years and checks app options that are marked as passwords. A recent release fixed the warning that surfaces it, which is why people are noticing it now.<p>Only the first 5 characters of a SHA-1 hash go to HIBP, and the matching happens locally: <a href="https://github.com/home-assistant/supervisor/blob/main/supervisor/utils/pwned.py" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/home-assistant/supervisor/blob/main/super...</a><p>Our documentation should have explained all of this, including how to turn it off. We'll get that updated.
Asking basically the same thing as the sibling replies, but hopefully in a less aggressive way: can you elaborate on what led you to reply like that in the first place? As someone with no horse in the race (I don't use Home Assistant), the first reply you gave genuinely does seem like it was intended in good faith, even if it was not satisfying to the user, and I can understand that angry users are not fun to interact with, but I'm struggling to wrap my head around why your second reply was "This issue is closed as won't fix" without any elaboration about why. The explanation that seems most likely to me is that you were annoyed at the user and decided not to spend any time looking into the issue, which would be unfortunate but maybe understandable if that's what you're apologizing for. Without any explanation about why you quickly dismissed and then suddenly turned around and changed your mind later though, I think you've risked the apology coming across more as damage control than genuine regret.
why lying on your first reply? you mentioned 1Password did the same, in an attempt to make yourself "less guilty", but you failed to realize 1Password doesn't enable that option automatically without consent, and in some cases this option is periodically DISABLED automatically. address this, please, it's pretty embarrassing to lie like this just to cover y'all's ass.
From my understanding, they seem to be under a lot of stress/pressure lately.<p>I'm not exactly sure why, but the stuff that happens tells that story (to me at least).<p>Barking at frenck on a Friday at 11.30PM like this is probably not the right thing to do.
Not a lie, but I was wrong on that one. I'm happy to admit that.<p>I've used 1Password's Watchtower for so many years that I assumed the breached password check was just part of it. After your reply I looked it up and learned it's actually a setting in their privacy preferences, so my comparison was off.<p>../Frenck
> My replies there were more dismissive than they should have been. My apologies.<p>I’m curious what made you change your mind, perhaps seeing this getting traction on hn?
> Only the first 5 characters of a SHA-1 hash go to HIBP<p>Some would consider the first five characters being sent over the internet to be 'your secret leaving your system'.<p>Some would consider phoning home to a remote server to be worrisome. It's home assistant not cloud assistant.
>As it turns out, the check can already be turned off<p>Problem solved!<p>>My replies there were more dismissive than they should have been<p>What about this one?
Toxic developers turned me off Home Assistant. The same developer is the star of this issue: <a href="https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326</a><p>Related discussion: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27505277">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27505277</a>
Frenck is the worst part of Home Assistant. He shits on so many things with just a hand wave and no attempt at justification.
And that kids is a clear example of how not to interact with people online.
Yeah not a good look. This is probably the worst way to handle community feedback.
The developer's reply was very reasonable and measured. The user, on the other hand, was very rude.
You may find this unasked for scan humiliating, but we can mathematically prove we're not humiliating you. Any feelings of discomfort or humiliation are therefore invalid and should be set aside.<p>Edit: I'm sure a greater good argument can be made. I just don't think they are making it in a way that justifies the invasiveness.
It sounds like the dev's reason for rejecting the issue is that the issue was opened on the documentation repo rather than the code repo.<p>On the one hand, it's understandable. No amount of documentation changes will fix the issue.<p>On the other hand, it's a pretty abrasive response. It wouldn't have taken any more effort to be a little more helpful and direct OP to the right repo: "Sorry, this is the wrong place for this to be addressed. Please bring it up here instead [link]."
(For missing context from this bare link to an issue with no context provided by the submitter — Home Assistant apparently integrated the same Have I Been Pwned safe scanning process that many other password managers have.)<p>I have a great deal of sympathy for them refusing to engage; decisive software creators are far less palatable to an entitled swarm of disagreement, and that same decisiveness is what makes the <i>best</i> software. Perhaps in U.S. culture, refusal with a smile and a reassurance that “We’re Listening” is something folks feel entitled to, but in other areas of the world, demanding a stranger change their mind once it’s made up earns only mockery or pity. To those cultures, this GitHub is a comedy-farce, and I laughed out loud upon reading it — not because I necessarily agree with the project’s decision, but because I agree <i>culturally</i> with their tone and handling of what some view as blatant immaturity: a final flat refusal, closing the door, and getting back to work.
Tough one. I get the intention but this should've been opt-in.
So, wait, these are secrets that are already given to h-a, hashed, and just the first five characters of the hash sent up..?<p>Yeah, I agree with the maintainer, this strikes me as outrage theater over any actual problem, no?
>>please let us know so we can uninstall and fork<p>>Sorry, these are not statements we can work with. Doing such threats and trying to intimidate it not going to bring you anywhere. If you want to do a<p>just wanted to add an outsider perspective here, not trying to add wood to the fire<p>but i don’t think it’s inappropriate or ‘a threat’ to let the dev know the user can stop using the software.
Is it inappropriate? Not really. Is it a threat? Yeah, it really is. “I’m going to stop using your software if you don’t change this” is a threat. “I’m going to fork it and ship a competing product” is a stronger threat.<p>It was a clear attempt to sway with intimidation. It was done politely but that doesn’t change what it was. (The dev had already closed as won’t fix, too, so they had preemptively answered.)
Giving the home assistant core developers the benefit of the doubt, I am sure there are good intentions here. But if they are interested in adding new security features, adding support for phishing-resistant multi factor authentication (passkeys) would be much more valuable. Users have been asking for it for some time, and even submitted patches, which were rejected.
I wouldn't be surprised if that integration is outright illegal in EU due to GDPR, thus putting HIBP in trouble for ingesting PII without any legal legitimacy.<p>And the first reply being "It is not an invasion of privacy" just shows incompetence on privacy topics. It is never a valid answer.<p>Which is really concerning, for the lead developer of a home automation system that "fights for the fundamental principle of privacy" as per their mission statement.
It's certainly an overstep, but just the hash they're sending wouldn't be PII.
What PII do you think is being sent to HIBP?
I am curious thought that how it would be illegal according to GDPR. They are hashed after all, and the same hash is not used for authentication.
Here we have the classic if you want something to happen in the corporate world, make it go viral on the internet. Except, humans will be humans and it played out in open source.<p>In this case, frenck most certainly backtracked because they realized they were on the front page of HN and did not want the heat.
The dev comes as self-serving. Not what you’d expect to see. Calls it heated when he himself caused it with their tone deaf response… it’s next level.
The same dev doesn't even like others packaging his open source libs.<p><a href="https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326</a>
> The dev comes as self-serving<p>What, do you not include links to every single one of your social media accounts in every single post you make on GitHub? I think this is a very cool and normal thing, and not a concerning red flag about narcissistic tendencies at all.
I have another tab open where I am about to buy a home assistant green and start a journey of probably-pointless automations. This is giving me pause. Not about sending hashes to haveibeenpwned, but about the response this got on github.
> If this is all reason for you to uninstall and fork... So be it, it is open source after all.<p>what a petty answer. "just fork it bro".
Awfully tone deaf responses
[flagged]
[dead]