> The bug is in Ruby’s regular expression engine, so any program that compiles regular expressions from untrusted input is exposed, not only GitLab.
I feel like this era of constant exploits/patches is really bad for those who build from source or make their own images vs those who rely on provided images and upgrade them often. I really can't think of a decent solution for those people other than being plugged in 24/7 to the latest news which is really unfortunate and must be exhausting...
[–] milkshakes 1 day ago
https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2026/10/23/regexp-fixes-fo...
> We have not requested CVE identifiers in Ruby for these fixes, at least for now.
> Ruby has generally considered it unsafe to compile and use a regular expression created from untrusted input. We stated this in the advisory for CVE-2022-28738, where we nevertheless treated a double free in Regexp compilation as a vulnerability after a comprehensive assessment. We did the same for CVE-2024-27282.
[–] couchand 1 day ago
Despite what anyone would try to sell you, a regular expression is a programming language. It's Always A Bad Idea (TM) to compile untrusted input into any kind of programming language. Don't string concatenate SQL queries, eval is evil, it's all the same idea.
[–] Blackthorn 1 day ago
[–] luhn 15 hours ago
[–] OJFord 15 hours ago
[–] Gigachad 22 hours ago
[–] rendaw 1 day ago
[–] quibono 22 hours ago
[–] milkshakes 1 day ago
i agree with you!
nevertheless,
> where we nevertheless treated a double free in Regexp compilation as a vulnerability after a comprehensive assessment
not sure what sort of comprehensive assessment is still called for at this point?
[–] weinzierl 1 day ago
We've git that under control with regulation and the help of organizations, some of which still exist today.
This "era of constant exploits/patches" is not normal and can't go on. Currently it is an ongoing cat and mouse game, but it doesn't have to be.
[–] bombcar 1 day ago
[–] cowlevel 17 hours ago
[–] alansaber 15 hours ago
[–] esseph 1 day ago
Security is always reactive by its very nature. You can do proactive things, but you will always be reactive to novel attacks.
Expect everything to have various levels of rolling upgrades, and soon. That's a lot of work.
[–] weinzierl 1 day ago
When it comes to software it hasn't always been the case. Before the Internet software was considered something stable and even now there are areas, like functional safety critical software, where this is true to some degree.
It's not that it can't be done.
It used to be expensive to a certain extent it will stay expensive, but modern languages, tooling and formal methods will hopefully mitigate that enough.
[–] cowlevel 17 hours ago
[–] esseph 16 hours ago
No, they won't :) This is the world now.
[–] 0x1F8B 1 day ago
The future is near constant burning of tokens in your software factory to do this automatically. The labs create the increase in demand for their own product.
[–] pixl97 1 day ago
The way LLMs are developed now is but one possible future we could have experienced. Imagine the future where the LLMs were built by a few governments with black budgets and hidden until a war or some other large event broke out. Then suddenly most of the computers and digital infrastructure shits itself as everything goes wonky.
At least this way we get to see that a shared global infrastructure built on the idea that security is someone else's problem was a really bad idea and we might have enough time to fix it or pull enough plugs we don't go back to the dark age.
[–] Gigachad 1 day ago
Alongside the current scanning and patching of software.
[–] 0x1F8B 1 day ago
[–] esseph 1 day ago
I don't think that lasts, I've seen at least 5 viable replacements now. All internal projects at major US companies.
[–] devrwoody 21 hours ago
[–] rconti 1 day ago
[–] Melatonic 23 hours ago
[–] esseph 1 day ago
[–] Gigachad 1 day ago
This might feel like a "Yeah obviously" moment, but the fact is that very few Rails apps are running the latest ruby release the moment it comes out.
[–] awesome_dude 1 day ago
I mean - this incident brings it into sharper focus - but it's always been thus.
As a Go developer I often tell people "Be wary of vendoring, you are creating a cache of dependencies that need to be managed and maintained"
Or people that "pin" dependencies, they face the same difficulty.
Why not just use "official" (in this case) images - sometimes they lag too - hell, most Linux distributions lag so much with Go compiler packages that, again, I routinely tell people to avoid them in favour of watching the Go official page
[–] cpuguy83 19 hours ago
In go, vendoring dependencies just copies the deps out of the module system into the local tree and it's managed the same as not vendoring. It won't even build of the go.mod has changed without also updating the vendor tree.
[–] Gigachad 1 day ago
[–] jamesfinlayson 1 day ago
[–] Operyl 1 day ago
[–] wtch98 19 hours ago
[–] FuriouslyAdrift 17 hours ago
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/entra/identity/app-proxy/o...
[–] wtch98 16 hours ago
[–] egeozcan 1 day ago
[–] StableAlkyne 1 day ago
If someone wants to vibe code an alternative to a SaaS tool, my gut feeling is "no, this is bad and it will blow up" as vibe-coded projects tend to do.
But then the alternative is often paying $X million per year for licenses to a half-assed program that hasn't had a UI update since 2005.
I just don't have a good argument on why they shouldn't when the outcome will be just as dogshit, only cheaper and flashier.
[–] ozim 1 day ago
I don’t want them to change UI. I have plenty of work to do and have plenty of other tools that I use daily.
I have my workflows, I am swamped with work and now I have to change my workflows because someone changed options in UI where ones that O used are not there anymore.
[–] IlanGR 21 hours ago
[–] unrented7977 15 hours ago
I'm still using the 2024 version of JetBrains IDEs because the UI hadn't changed in over ten years. I quit paying JetBrains when they ripped out the perfectly functional UI and replaced it with a VSCode reskin.
Please, for the love of god, give me software with a consistent UI.
[–] gokulravi992 1 day ago
If they go ahead anyway, the ask is just that someone actually owns it after launch, not only builds it.
[–] ozim 1 day ago
[–] egeozcan 1 day ago
[–] input_sh 1 day ago
[–] ozim 18 hours ago
[–] usrnm 1 day ago
[–] griffiths 1 day ago
[–] Sebguer 1 day ago
[–] dijit 23 hours ago
The fact that Jira/Confluence are being processed by their LLMs puts them in direct legal conflict with several statutes in the EU, its a matter of time for them to get hit by this and I’m betting that they think the fine will be lower than the revenue they acquire for doing it- and they’re hoping they don’t get hit at all.
This seems to be the common case for a lot of the non-EU tech companies, and it seems to be working.
Oracle is currently the market leader in “sovereign” compute for EU governments for example, as ironic as that is.
[–] egeozcan 1 day ago
You don't need to be so hostile. I know about the EU requirements but many EU companies have sensitive data on hosted JIRA / Confluence that simply cannot be in the possession of a non-European company. I know because I'm working for one. I cannot even remote-work from outside Europe. Some stuff cannot even leave the VPN. There's also the CLOUD act.
[–] jamesfinlayson 1 day ago
[–] kenniskrag 1 day ago
They are constantly changing their software and settings. More than once they believed that something is legal but can be risky for the atlassian customer.
For example training AI on metadata which they believe are anonymized but are maybe not enough changed.
Training data or metadata permisson can not be configured on all subscriptions. But as a data processor they must follow the contract otherwise they become data controller.
Also there are risks associated with privacy data framework, cloud act etc. to be non compliant just by data transfers to other countries.
[–] bombcar 1 day ago
I’m doing my part!
[–] tallanvor 19 hours ago
[–] dewey 19 hours ago
[–] midtake 14 hours ago
[–] ifwinterco 17 hours ago
And zero trust makes sense, once one service behind a VPN is compromised attackers can potentially move laterally, zero trust mitigates that
[–] theamk 18 hours ago
For personal services, even something as simple as HTTP basic auth on the webserver dramatically reduces the attack surface by blocking all probers and drive-by attacks.