1. Messages
  2. NTP

Re: NTP

Emily Ratliff
 

I had to look up 'OG'. :-) Always good to learn new lingo.

Absolutely agree with your sentiment. As projects mature and grow larger, the barriers to entry also grow larger in that the amount of knowledge that you need to have before making a meaningful contribution also grows, especially for highly technical and complex projects like crypto and time.

But, that is why it is a best practice to offer advice for incoming contributors and even tag bugs for newcomers to help them learn the code base like the projects on OpenHatch's Easy Bugs have done:
Producing lists like these also take time so this concept is sadly out of reach for critically short-handed projects.


On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Kit Plummer <kit.plummer@...> wrote:
Thanks for the update Emily.  

Yeah, some of these ‘OG’ projects are tough to track for sure.  :)  Perhaps that is why they are less popular?

Kit

On Jan 28, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Emily Ratliff <eratliff@...> wrote:

This is likely a quirk in the data. CII does fund the NTP project for ongoing maintenance work (part-time - the project certainly could use additional funding). They don't use the github repository as their main development repo, so that may be throwing the numbers off. There are more than 0 committers. 

On the blog article, please also see this thread where the issue is discussed on oss-security:

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:30 AM, John Scott <jms3rd@...> wrote:
as an aside, from Kit:

The NTP problem is really bugging me.  
Not even recognized as a top-10 ‘risk’ as defined by the CII Census (https://www.coreinfrastructure.org/programs/census-project) with a really low popularity rating and 0 committers - yikes.  If it is unreal to believe that not one of the main Linux/UNIX distros wouldn’t pay somebody to be a project lead for that thing.  Then there’s this:  http://netpatterns.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-rising-sophistication-of-network.html

-------------------------------------------
John Scott
@johnmscott

On January 15, 2016 at 9:48:50 AM, Wheeler, David A (dwheeler@...) wrote:

Sebastian Benthall:
> One thing I'm trying to get a sense of (and I still need to read the paper very thoroughly to find out) is what exactly the "risk" you a measuring is risk of. That would make it easier to identify ground truth or proxies for it in existing data.

The title of the supporting paper gives that away: "Open Source Software Projects Needing Security Investments". The CII project was started, in part, as a response to the Heartbleed vulnerability of OpenSSL. We're trying to determine what projects are more likely to have serious vulnerabilities and investment is needed.


> Is there a record of the anomalies and the adjustments?

A high-level discussion is in the paper. See the git log for a record of many of the actual adjustments (the commit text should give you at least a brief reason as to *why* they were adjusted). I don’t think all adjustments we tried are recorded in the git log, since we weren't particularly trying to do that (sorry). But I think you'll find lots of useful information.


> Is there any sort of formal procedure for further expert review?
> I would be interested in designing such a procedure if there isn't one.

No, there's no formal procedure. You can propose one.

That said, we're happy to take good ideas from anyone, even if they're not perceived as experts.

--- David A. Wheeler

_______________________________________________
cii-census mailing list
cii-census@...
https://lists.coreinfrastructure.org/mailman/listinfo/cii-census

_______________________________________________
cii-census mailing list
cii-census@...
https://lists.coreinfrastructure.org/mailman/listinfo/cii-census
Join cii-census@lists.coreinfrastructure.org to automatically receive all group messages.