I would argue that first requires investigation.
They probably just have a bunch of angry emails to go on at this point and haven’t looked in detail at anything else.
They probably just have a bunch of angry emails to go on at this point and haven’t looked in detail at anything else.
Why do you think that enough of an investigation hasn't been performed in order to understand culpability?
Thay already know what happened and want to learn why it was approved. That was what their comment said.
Take a look at the actual PDF from the researchers, "On the Feasibility of Stealthily Introducing Vulnerabilities in Open-Source Software via Hypocrite Commits" [1]
[1] https://github.com/QiushiWu/QiushiWu.github.io/blob/main/pap...
0: https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc....
Here is Ken Thompson's apropos paper from 1984. [0]
[0] https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...
> Why do you think that enough of an investigation hasn't been performed in order to understand culpability?
We need to make sure to be supportive of people making mistakes and learning from them instead of raising pitchforks for every misstep. Failure is never completely avoidable and responding properly to failure is way more important than never failing.
The "if needed" tells me they aren't sure what if anything is wrong yet. It would surprise me if they have done that much of an investigation in the few hours since they might have learned about this beyond scheduling meetings with involved parties and compiling relevant documents in a folder.
I think they are at the point of having a bunch of angry emails and a few news articles from certain publications. I don't blame them wanting a bit more than that before saying anything.