| General > General Technical Chat |
| University of Minnesota Linux code security issues; banned and to be removed |
| << < (8/23) > >> |
| DrG:
--- Quote from: ataradov on April 25, 2021, 02:35:19 am --- --- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 02:29:20 am ---I don't know who gets really hurt there...one way of telling is if the Univ says...we have done x y z to prevent this from happening ....and then the ban gets lifted. --- End quote --- I'm pretty sure this is resolvable. The University just need to talk in private, and not issue more stupid suggestions to update the code of conduct. Get someone who is not too woke to do that. --- End quote --- I think the author was the one who made the suggestion to update the code of conduct (maybe the Univ did also). But, what are they going to say in private? I don't think they want the attention period, but if they really screwed up somewhere along the line - and I do not know that they did, they will have to change something I would think. |
| ataradov:
--- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 02:41:04 am ---I think the author was the one who made the suggestion to update the code of conduct (maybe the Univ did also). But, what are they going to say in private? I don't think they want the attention period, but if they really screwed up somewhere along the line - and I do not know that they did, they will have to change something I would think. --- End quote --- Just promise to change the review process and not submit malicious code would be enough. This just needs to come from high enough level at the Uni. The public reaction of the kernel developers is fully justified. If they let it slide, there will be a competition among haxors who can submit the biggest hole into the kernel unnoticed. This behavior needs to be nipped in the bud. People need to understand that there is not much to be gained and quite a bit to be lost here. Zero tolerance policies may appear cruel at times, but they are often the only way to prevent unwanted behaviour. |
| DrG:
--- Quote from: ataradov on April 25, 2021, 02:32:54 am --- --- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 02:07:45 am ---So, what, if anything, do you do to this fellow and his supervisor if you are the University? --- End quote --- Get them out. Do so with the review board too. They should know better that unethical behaviour does not just starts at human experimentation. And if they really think it does - they need to go just for that reason. I think it is not too late for the University to resolve the issue in general, just talk to the kernel people in private. --- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 02:07:45 am ---Let's say the proceedings folks cancel it - same situation...if it was accepted, what has changed? --- End quote --- The understanding that this childish behaviour should not be encouraged. Because even if kernel people are no longer talking to you, presenting that at a conference may be a decent "get" anyway. --- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 02:07:45 am ---If they now decide it is unethical, what changed? --- End quote --- This "research" is clear waste of time and money. To anyone with half a brain, it should be obvious that you can get the bad code into the kernel. This happens all the time unintentionally. Obviously doing so intentionally is even easier. How is this not obvious? The topic of the paper is just dumb, it demonstrates absolutely nothing, as there is no way to address the supposed issue. --- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 02:07:45 am ---Somebody want to start litigation of some kind - ok, now show damages. --- End quote --- I would not. Why waste time? Not dealing with people that intentionally waste my time is the best I can do. --- End quote --- The thing is, and I am really not trying to be confrontational, is that if you are being administrative and being official, you can can't start withdrawing papers that you already cleared (assuming they did) because it was childish. "clear waste of time and money" IYO but the defense is that "we did it to show this dangerous situation and blah blah blah" - again, not trying to contradict you but I have to point out that some of what your saying is really opinionated and would not, necessarily,"litigate" well. If it was specified very well, operationally defined, concisely, it could be codified I suppose...but that is a lot of work. |
| ataradov:
--- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 02:47:28 am ---you can start withdrawing papers that you already cleared (assuming they did) because it was childish. --- End quote --- But this already happens all the time. Most of the time it happens because results were not interpreted correctly, or experiment was not clean. The article can absolutely be pulled by the University. And from the IEEE conference. In fact, if they did not do this already, it kind of shows that they want to burn the bridges entirely. --- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 02:47:28 am ---would not, necessarily,"litigate" well. --- End quote --- It is great that kernel developers are just a private people that can chose to not deal with a certain organization "just because". They don't need to litigate. |
| DrG:
--- Quote from: ataradov on April 25, 2021, 02:45:33 am --- --- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 02:41:04 am ---I think the author was the one who made the suggestion to update the code of conduct (maybe the Univ did also). But, what are they going to say in private? I don't think they want the attention period, but if they really screwed up somewhere along the line - and I do not know that they did, they will have to change something I would think. --- End quote --- Just promise to change the review process and not submit malicious code would be enough. This just needs to come from high enough level at the Uni. The public reaction of the kernel developers is fully justified. If they let it slide, there will be a competition among haxors who can submit the biggest hole into the kernel unnoticed. This behavior needs to be nipped in the bud. People need to understand that there is not much to be gained and quite a bit to be lost here. Zero tolerance policies may appear cruel at times, but they are often the only way to prevent unwanted behaviour. --- End quote --- OK, let me come at iy differently because I do think that you are more right than wrong, but when you want to regulate something (or stop something) you have to be down right brilliant in how you codify it or you will get all kinds of unintended effects. What, should have happened to have prevented this? Hypothetically...s supervisor saying "I do not support this line of research, or this methodology (or both) because I don't thing it is novel or significant or likely to yield information of real value". That should have stopped it and that happens all the time (much to the dismay of graduate students). But what if the supervisor does not feel that way? I had a dissertation proposal meeting and it lasted for hours...it was not just my supervisor, it was 4-5 others including someone not at the Univ....that was the SOP. So, at that proposal meeting, you hashed out any problems with your plan...you had to show all sorts of stuff...feasibility, statistical expertise and an analysis plan, preliminary or supporting data - the whole ball game, and you, of course, you had to have the blessing of your supervisor. A mini version of all of that had to take place if you wanted to any research. So, did that happen here? Should it have - I'm sure you would say yes, but academic freedom is a big deal as I'm sure you know. It is very complicated and you, in general, want to keep it that way so that you are not turning out factory style work (some would argue that happens anyways). So, my point, assuming I have one, is that I don't want to see a lot of new restrictions put in place that are not need and will have other consequences and will suck up resources. First, I want to know precisely what was done wrong here. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |