As the person who wrote the fix for this issue (and not the original code), I will just mention that I find this paragraph makes the author sound incredibly entitled:

    Shamefully, the inetutils project hasn’t actually released a fixed version of their software (at least at the time of publishing).

The bug was reported on a public mailing list, which is sadly common nowadays [1]. After my workday, during which I was not able to review the report, I wrote a script to confirm the bug was real, since I was seeing way too many slop reports at the time. Then I sent a patch before going to bed [2]. A third party then graciously shared the patch on oss-security [3], which all distributions follow. There is no need to make a new release, which is harder for the distributions than simply applying a small patch.

Perhaps I am just unlucky in my interactions, but I feel like this entitlement is too common among software security people. Note that I see zero return in spending time working on Inetutils, and I find other projects I work on more interesting.

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-inetutils/2026-03/msg... [2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-inetutils/2026-03/msg... [3] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/03/12/4

you are right they are entitled brats. usually they cant write good code themselves and they purposefully look for very old or low traffic code to find things that are 'old' etc. to make stupid uninteresting AI generated blog posts.

i have not seen a decent writeup in one of these clickbait things these ppl push out.

just ignore these types of ppl. its fine to fix the bugs ofc but what i mean is, ignore their attitudes. its a kids' attitude to life they keep

The not-so-silent minority hanging out on HN know that the true heroes are those who take the time and put in the effort, and then put even more effort to reply and post about it here.

Thanks to all of our heroes, op included.

It's an unfortunate statement. And it does feel like it discredits you and the heroic efforts of those like you.

But this is probably forgiven as just sensationalism in writing, which is all too common. Not to excuse the author, but these types of writeups tend to drift into name calling and finger pointing a little too soon.

"Shamefully" is definitely the wrong word here, for sure.

> But this is probably forgiven as just sensationalism in writing

Why should we forgive sensationalism in writing at all?

> "1994" > "RISC was a distant dream"

Ahem

Needs a (March 19) (I know HN only does this for years, but this being about vulnerabilities…)

I really dislike articles that blow out of proportion the technical details. TLDR; bounds checking was missing leading to potential memory corruption.

FYI all signalling is in-band signalling

If you're going to rip off xkcd pictures, I feel it'd be polite at least credit and/or link the original.

A surprisingly long article for a one-line fix the authors didn’t send.

Since AI is redacting, a lot of articles are long and boring to read with a lot of useless details.

RISC was not a distant dream in 1994 LMAO.

That made me spit out my tea. The prose was insulting.