This sounds very much like the idiocy of "infosec" lunkheads who know nothing about what they're "fixing" but if an automated system tells them a CVE exists, they've absolutely got to have it "patched". They don't look into what the claims of the CVE are, or whether their specific use case is vulnerable. They don't know, they don't care, they're not even programmers. All they know is a box needs ticking.
A similar thing happened with h2database - a "security researcher" found that if you do something you're told not to do, then bad things happen.. but they demanded and got a CVE allocated anyway. Anyone who looks at it realises it's bullshit, but the mere existence of a CVE is all that matters to these idiots.
> I struggle to understand why I should feel the slightest shred of sympathy for "major corporations" that are using a volunteer-developed open-source project. Feel free to get your corporation to pay someone to deal with this, or pay for a similar commercial library.
A similar thing happened with h2database - a "security researcher" found that if you do something you're told not to do, then bad things happen.. but they demanded and got a CVE allocated anyway. Anyone who looks at it realises it's bullshit, but the mere existence of a CVE is all that matters to these idiots.
What the h2database developer said about it: https://github.com/h2database/h2database/issues/3686#issueco...
> I struggle to understand why I should feel the slightest shred of sympathy for "major corporations" that are using a volunteer-developed open-source project. Feel free to get your corporation to pay someone to deal with this, or pay for a similar commercial library.