84
Yes, Ubuntu Is Withholding Security Patches for Some Software (www.flu0r1ne.net)
submitted 1 year ago by pnutzh4x0r@lemmy.ndlug.org to c/linux@lemmy.ml
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] stealthnerd@lemmy.world 97 points 1 year ago

TLDR: Ubuntu Pro offers additional security patches to packages found in the universe repo. Universe is community maintained so Ubuntu is essentially stepping in to provide critical CVE patches to some popular software in this repo that the community has not addressed.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it but I don't really see this as withholding patches. Software in this repo would otherwise be missing these patches and it's a ton of work for Ubuntu to provide these patches themselves.

Now is they move glibc to universe and tell me to subscribe to get updates I'll feel differently.

[-] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 46 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I think Canonical is full of crap, but in this context, what they're doing is justified.

This article is clickbait.

[-] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 year ago

The title is. The article itself is pretty generous.

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 year ago

How does this compare to other distros?

Debian includes ffmpeg, for example, in the main stable repo. Given Debian's reputation, I would think they are including these security patches in a timely manner, though I'm not entirely sure how to compare specific patches to verify this.

Of course, everything changes when you are selling support contracts. Canonical and Red Hat are the big two for enterprise because they provide support.

When I was last running Ubuntu on desktop, I signed up for an account and enabled these extra security updates. Yeah, it's "free", but it requires jumping through hoops. Requiring an account to get patches is the kind of user-hostile design pattern I expect from Apple or Google, but not in the desktop Linux world.

[-] AProfessional@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nobody else has this hybrid model. RHEL is a paid distro in general. Most others are just free entirely. They all patch CVEs when they can. Ubuntu doesn’t write all of their patches or anything.

[-] dan@upvote.au 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ubuntu and Debian are essentially the same here.

Debian's contrib repo, which is the equivalent of Ubuntu's universe repo, doesn't get security updates from the Debian security team, as it's not considered an official part of Debian. Package maintianers have to provide security updates. https://www.debian.org/security/faq#contrib

The difference is that Ubuntu provide paid support for contrib packages, including patches. Debian doesn't have any official paid support options.

[-] aev@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 1 year ago

No, they aren't. You can switch to their Universe patches anytime, at your own risk. If you want Canonical to mitigate that risk for you, you pay. Simple, really.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 year ago

Frankly this isn't terrible. I'm sure there was a valid reason.

Oh snap

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

JFC, this misinformation again...

[-] LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Oh God, a company wants to get paid for its support. Let's tar and feather them.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Gonna switch my server to Debian once DigitalOcean releases their Debian 12 guides.

Tired of seeing this "extended-security maintenance" bullshit on the most recent LTS of Ubuntu.

[-] fossisfun@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 year ago

There are plenty of reasons to get rid of Ubuntu, but this isn't one of them.

Before Ubuntu Pro, packages in universe (and multiverse) were not receiving (security) updates at all, unless someone from the community stepped up and maintained the package. Now Canonical provides security updates for universe, for the first time since Ubuntu has been introduced, via Ubuntu Pro, which is free for up to five personal devices and paid for all other use cases.

Debian is actually not that different (anymore). If you read the release notes of Debian 12, you'll notice that quite a few package groups are excluded from guaranteed security updates, just like packages in universe are in Ubuntu. Unlike Ubuntu, Debian doesn't split its package repository by security support though.

[-] ares35@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

via Ubuntu Pro, which is free for up to five personal devices and paid for all other use cases

this stinks a lot like red hat's early days.

we know how that turned out.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Looks like Canonical is trying to sell me security updates I would be getting for free on Debian.

Debian 12 likely isn't that different, but I don't want to follow a Debian 11 setup guide then run into issues.

[-] fossisfun@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This has always been the case with Ubuntu. Ubuntu only ever supported its main repository with security updates. Now they offer (paid) support for the universe repository in addition, which is a bonus for Ubuntu users, as they now have a greater selection of packages with security updates.

If you don't opt-in to use Ubuntu Pro, nothing changes and Ubuntu will be as secure (or insecure) as it has always been. If you disable universe and multiverse you have a Ubuntu system where all packages receive guaranteed security updates for free.

Please note: I still don't recommend Ubuntu due to snapd not supporting third-party repositories, but that's no reason not to get the facts right.

Debian has always been the better choice if you required security updates for the complete package repository.

Personally I have my doubts if Debian actually manages to reliably backport security updates for all its packages. Afterall Eclipse was stuck on version 3.8 for multiple Debian releases due to lack of a maintainer ...

[-] ares35@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

debian's repo is massive. there are holes here and there from time-to-time as is likely the case in any distro--paid updates or not.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Thank you for the information.

I'll still be going with Debian because Ubuntu keeps telling me I have 2 security updates locked behind their paywall.

[-] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Nope. Not accurate at all.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Really? Why?

[-] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Because the updates are not anyone "trying to sell me security updates I would be getting for free on Debian."

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Really? Which part isn't true, the selling me updates or that they're available on Debian?

Come on man, use your words lol.

[-] TigrisMorte@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

It is entirely untrue. Where as you made the claim, and I am merely calling you a liar while making no claim of my own, it would seem that you must prove your claim with say a sales promotion or some other solicitation plus a credible report that these updates would otherwise exist without the charge from those whose business use case depends upon them.

If you wish to hate upon ubuntu do so, but don't lie about it.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Lol, okay buddy.

[-] dan@upvote.au 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

security updates I would be getting for free on Debian.

Debian contrib doesn't get official security updates, the same as Ubuntu universe. https://www.debian.org/security/faq#contrib

In both Debian and Ubuntu, only the main repo gets official security updates for free. Ubuntu has a paid option for universe whereas Debian doesn't have that option and relies on the package maintainer to provide any updates.

I'd still recommend Debian over Ubuntu though, for various reasons.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Do users get the package maintainer's updates for free?

[-] dan@upvote.au 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Definitely on Debian, and I think on Ubuntu too.

Package maintainers can be slow to update packages though. Debian have a separate security team that get patches out ASAP, and those packages go into a separate security repo. I imagine Ubuntu does the same. It's that security team that only deals with "official" packages, meaning anything that's not in contrib, non-free, or non-free-firmware.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

To me, it looks like Debian and Ubuntu are both secure but you have to pay extra to make Ubuntu at least as secure as Debian.

[-] dan@upvote.au 1 points 11 months ago

What you're paying extra for are timely security updates for community-maintained packages that aren't an official part of the OS. Debian doesn't provide that for free either. Debian doesnt provide it at all since they don't have any paid options.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

So users just run insecure packages on Debian?

[-] dan@upvote.au 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

No. All the official packages in the main repo get security updates from the Debian security team.

Only the packages in contrib, non-free and non-free-firmware don't have official security updates and rely on the package maintainers. These are not considered part of the Debian distro, and I don't even have them enabled on my servers.

Out-of-the-box, Debian only enables the main repo, plus the non-free-firmware one if any of your devices require it (e.g. Nvidia graphics, Realtek Bluetooth, etc). You have to manually enable contrib and non-free, and by doing that, it's assumed you know what you're doing.

In the case of non-free and non-free-firmware, they can be closed source software (like the Nvidia drivers) or have a non-open-source license that doesn't allow distributing modified versions. In those cases, the Debian team is unable to patch them even if they wanted to.

[-] n2burns@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

If it's just the message that bugs you, you can disable ESM by commenting out the esm repo (the second answer here). That's what I did.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The message is definitely annoying, but the fact they're locking security updates behind paywalls makes me want to switch.

Just doesn't make sense to pay extra for security updates when Debian gives them out for free.

[-] ares35@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

do they also lock their sources behind a subscriber agreement that prohibits redistribution of source like ibm's redhat has done?

[-] Ganbat@lemmyonline.com 7 points 1 year ago

RHL: We're locking down our source because people are using it without contributing!

Also RHL: Thanks for your contribution, but we're not interested until we have someone ready to pay us for your labor.

[-] Cwilliams@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Even if Ubuntu does start doing slightly sketchy things, they'll still be a million times better than Windows or MacOS

[-] ares35@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

canonical has already crossed that 'slightly sketchy' line.

[-] drwho@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

And how many respins of Ubuntu are out there that just have their own repos? Quite a few, as I recall.

[-] GustavoM@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You guys 'member when security patches were (freely) given away, for free, without asking nothing back?

I 'member.

Looks like the "Windowsfied Linux" era is upon us.

[-] Dirk@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

That's the problem with "corporate Linux"[^1]. They see their users as customers only.

[^1]: Directly or indirectly owned by a for-profit organization of any type or directly or indirectly dependent on such an organization.

[-] TCB13@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

What a fucking shock. #not.

This is what you get when you use questionable open-source.

this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
84 points (73.6% liked)

Linux

48058 readers
1073 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz