The author addresses the issue.
Man I used to have a manually made multibootusb using grub config files and isos but moved to ventoy for convenience and now I can’t find where I backup up de configuration…
Is there a good alternative to ventoy?
Of course I coukd flash the iso directly to the usb stick but thats not what I mean. I mean a trustworthy foss ventoy alternative.
You can use glim or build your own tool using grub. Edit: The article on Arch Wiki describes the manual process and also list more automated alternatives.
Can I boot windows with it?
Perhaps I’m too skeptical and/or have trust issues, but isn’t this too little too late? This issue had been ignored for so long, but -suddenly- within 24 hours of this very peculiar find[1], Ventoys maintainer goes into full damage-control mode. Should we just accept that?
Sorry, at least for now, I simply don’t buy it.
Spoiler alert: Ventoy’s sister software -called iVentoy- employs a trick that has been utilized for installing compromised kernel drivers. ↩︎
The guy is trying to address the issue and he is building this in his free time. Give him some credit at least, I am sure this is consuming a lot of his free time.
I personally find this Ventoy an amazing piece of software and he also seems to be willing to address the issue and be more transparent in the future which is also commendable.
The guy is trying to address the issue and he is building this in his free time. Give him some credit at least, I am sure this is consuming a lot of his free time.
Fam, you’ve chosen to trust them for reasons that are unclear to me. Honestly, I don’t see anything (yet) that would clear their name. For all we know, they could have ties to some intelligence agency; which the infamous Jia Tan has (retroactively) been accused of as well.
I personally find this Ventoy an amazing piece of software
That’s not the issue. I’ve also made plenty use of it in the past. But at what point do you start to second guess the intent behind the maintainer?
he also seems to be willing to address the issue and be more transparent in the future which is also commendable.
Again, arguably too little too late. They literally ghosted the issue for over a year. Then, within 24 hours of possible proof of malicious code, they appear and (perhaps) “pose the image” of putting in a gargantuan effort to resolve the issue. But, like, where were they for a year? Furthermore, the hints of justifications for their actions are simply not up too par.
Don’t get me wrong. As I clearly hinted at it in my previous comment, if they pull through and provide/produce (bit-by-bit) reproducible builds of Ventoy[1], then I obviously have no qualms against them or their software. Why would I? But until then, I will steer clear.
What should have happened for you to be more concerned?
Another spoiler-alert: They admitted that it would be hard. Which is fine, but could be interpreted as the first action for an eventual cop out. Only time will tell… ↩︎
There shouldn’t be the need to clear a name, because you shouldn’t be smearing someone’s name who’s giving away their work. It’s fine to distrust it, but then just don’t use the software.
My problem is that a lot of people are giving a lot of shit to open source developers, who are creating great software in their free time.
Instead of enjoying their free time, they give a lot of it to the community, and then they get accused of wrong doings if the quality of their code isn’t at enterprise level. The problem is that people are being toxic to them and this makes them less likely to continue doing that. I am trying to give credit as I know how hard it is to build and support some software and I want the open source community to thrive and not turn into a toxic cesspool.
Jia Tan was a big warning for everyone, I admit, but if you look at the big picture he was a single person in a sea of open source projects and honestly speaking if we are talking of state sponsored attacks, I would say that big corporations like Cisco, Fortinet, etc. would be more of a target than small open source projects. I just wish we could give the guy some credit for all his work and at least let him prove that those blobs are harmless.
I also think a big part of your qualms is the fact that he is Chinese and you are less likely to trust because of your bias.
Not being transparent about a potential security issue is not the same as outputting low quality work though. If a piece of FOSS lacks some quality or features that I’d really like it is a little annoying, but understandable and not a big deal. If I hear that there are binary blobs that no one can reproduce or conclusively explain, and the devs are silent, I won’t assume the best intentions regardless of where they are from.
I’ll try to keep it brief/concise/short. Apologies if this makes me come across as abrasive in the process.
If I’d attempt to distill the point(s) in your reply, I’d come to:
- You want to uphold the respect and good will (F(L))OSS developers absolutely deserve for doing the thankless work and effort they put. I’m with you on this. The only difference could be that I’m actively trying to uphold a standard[1] for this and applying that (subjective) standard here. That’s also why I asked you questions[2] to understand your standard in hopes of coming to a mutual understanding or at least a better understanding of each other.
Insinuating that I might have some anti-Chinese bias (or something). Honestly, I didn’t want to go over this as I deliberately skipped a lot of other points (like implying that enterprise level code is somehow better, ignoring the fact that binary blobs go completely against the spirit of (F(L))OSS, ignoring that Ventoy -however small of a project you may view it- has a unique position for malicious use or somehow implying that big corpo software is more interesting to be targeted) that I didn’t deem worth discussing here. I hope you understand why I couldn’t ignore this (possible) ‘allegation’. I’ll keep it brief, though: No, it being supposedly by a person that knows Chinese doesn’t even remotely affect my judgement and/or evaluation. I find it distasteful/appalling that that’s even considered. But I thank you for laying your cards in this respect as this will help to move on to the actual meat of the conversation.
You absolutely don’t have to respect my standard or anyone else’s. I just make the observation that everyone has ‘a’ standard for adopting (F(L)OSS. ↩︎
Those questions being: “But at what point do you start to second guess the intent behind the maintainer?” and “What should have happened for you to be more concerned?”. Please don’t feel necessarily pressed to answer them. However, I’m positive that it’ll be instrumental to bridge our stances. On the note of questions, allow me to introduce a third one that might be beneficial in getting my point across, don’t you think the handling of this issue (i.e. literal radio silence for over a year while it has arguably been the biggest issue in its history) leaves a lot to be desired? ↩︎
Quoting directly from the author:
For a long time, I devoted my limited spare time to adding new features and fixing bugs and didn’t get around to considering this.
I hate to break it to you, but it appears the author don’t even have the bandwidth to worry about your trust.
Enjoy your malware.
Thanks, you too!
The fact remains though: why did they literally go radio silence on this issue for over a year? Like, a simple, “I would like to notify everyone that I’m working on this.” would have been sufficient. Was that too much to ask?
Maybe they weren’t working on it.
If with “it” you refer to Ventoy, then I’d like to inform you that they’ve been doing a good job at maintaining it. They’ve even had multiple releases[1] since the (original) issue was opened.
Those being 1.0.98, 1.0.99, 1.1.00, 1.1.01, 1.1.02, 1.1.03, 1.1.04 and 1.1.05. The most recent of these was released at the 24th of February of this year. ↩︎
I mean the specific issue about the binary blobs. Something that might set off alarm bells for you or a security-focused group may not do so for some dude working on a passion project in his free time.
Thanks for clarifying.
The example sentence could also be something like “I would like to notify everyone that I’m aware of this issue and I intend to start tackling it from <insert date> onwards. Allow me to explain the status quo for … (etc. etc.).”. Or whatever sentence you like. The point is not what the exact message is, but an alternative to the absolute radio silence we’ve met.
As for them working on it or not. Clearly, they haven’t worked on it until now. But I don’t understand what was so crucial in the last 8 releases that they couldn’t address this issue instead. Especially, in the aftermath of the XZ utils backdoor. But that’s not the issue I was trying to address with my previous comment. The issue is radio silence. It doesn’t have to set off alarm bells for themselves in order to acknowledge (timely) the concern a chunk of its user base experiences.
meh
Should we just accept that?
Accept it or not, you choice. Nobody cares.
Is frankly annoying to see how much shit FOSS (or OSS) developer have to eat for every little misstep or for not employing their unpaid time to solve other people’s issues (some of which are really laughable, btw).
A blatant lie, we see 600+ who do care in the link. github.com/ventoy/Ventoy/issues/2795
Who only blocks paid malware?
I was trying to stir a discussion/conversation: How much can we tolerate from our beloved (F(L))OSS developers? Can they get away with anything as long as they return with some promise?f
What is Ventoy?
I don’t know whether I put too much weight on this, but the lack of English proficiency in a developer rubs me the wrong way. I had already stopped using Ventoy and reinstalled the machines where I used it on, and this makes me glad I did.
