The Forgejo disclosure process looked pretty simple and straightforward to me. The bold and all-caps words that bothered the author are just making sure you know how to disclose vulnerabilities safely without leaking zero-day exploits to a wider audience than necessary.

I'm also not impressed with a carrot disclosure that looks like this. Running a python script to compromise a locally hosted instance? Bruh, you have physical hardware and host shell access. That python script could be doing anything including running as root.

Show us the exploit hitting a remote server.

>Just thinking something not being used is not enough, even if it's a security sensitive topic

Linux kernel seems to disagree. This is a dangerously naive way to think of networked software in the AI age.

---

edit: I got hit with the "posting too fast" block again, so I'll reply to dangus here:

>While a remote host would further prove the claim, the person clearly claims it is RCE, not just CE. It would be quite the pie in the face if the author wrote a python script to take in an IP address but modified system files on the backend to create a stunt.

A cryptographer friend tells the story of an amateur who kept bothering him with the cipher he invented. The cryptographer would break the cipher, the amateur would make a change to “fix” it, and the cryptographer would break it again. This exchange went on a few times until the cryptographer became fed up. When the amateur visited him to hear what the cryptographer thought, the cryptographer put three envelopes face down on the table. “In each of these envelopes is an attack against your cipher. Take one and read it. Don’t come back until you’ve discovered the other two attacks.” The amateur was never heard from again.

https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/archives/1998/1015.html

> Failure to comply with these rules will be criticized publicly, and we reserve the right to no longer coordinate with you or your project in the future.

lol

> Those aren't exploitable XSS, but it doesn't hurt to have a second layer of defense.

The other suggests breaking clients that aren't using the more secure version of an OAuth method because

> I can't think of any OAuth client that would like to [use it]

That second one is a good idea, but the maintainer is also right to ask for some discussion before introducing a breaking change.

But crucially: neither of these are the kind of significant security issues you've found. Maybe lead with an actual bug?

It doesn't appear like the author is acting in good faith, instead grandstanding in public because they feel superior.