The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) failed to renew its contract with MITRE, the non-profit organization responsible for maintaining the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program, a crucial system for tracking and cataloging software security flaws. This oversight puts the future of the CVE program in jeopardy, potentially disrupting the vital vulnerability management processes relied upon by security researchers, software vendors, and organizations worldwide. While CISA claims a new contract is forthcoming, the delay and lack of transparency raise concerns about the program's stability and long-term viability. The lapse underscores the fragility of critical security infrastructure and the potential for disruption due to bureaucratic processes.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is effectively dismantling 18F, its renowned digital services agency. While not explicitly shutting it down, the GSA is absorbing 18F into its Technology Transformation Services (TTS) and eliminating the 18F brand. This move comes as the GSA reorganizes TTS into two new offices, one focused on acquisition and the other on enterprise technology solutions, with former 18F staff being distributed across TTS. GSA Administrator Robin Carnahan stated the goal is to streamline and consolidate services, claiming it will improve efficiency and service delivery across government. However, the announcement sparked concern among many about the future of 18F's distinct agile approach and its potential impact on the agency's ability to deliver innovative digital solutions.
HN commenters express skepticism about the claimed cost savings from eliminating 18F, pointing out that government often replaces internal, innovative teams with expensive, less effective contractors. Several commenters highlight 18F's successes, including Login.gov and cloud.gov, and lament the loss of institutional knowledge and the potential chilling effect on future government innovation. Others suggest the move is politically motivated, driven by a desire to return to the status quo of relying on established contractors. The possibility of 18F staff being reabsorbed into other agencies is discussed, but with doubt about whether their agile methodologies will survive. Some express hope that the talented individuals from 18F will find their way to other impactful organizations.
DARPA is seeking innovative research proposals for the development of large, adaptable bio-mechanical structures for use in space. The goal is to leverage biological systems like plant growth or fungal mycelia to create structures in orbit, reducing the reliance on traditional manufacturing and launch limitations. This research will focus on demonstrating the feasibility of bio-based structural materials that can self-assemble, self-repair, and adapt to changing mission needs in the harsh space environment. The program envisions structures potentially spanning kilometers in size, drastically changing the possibilities for space-based habitats, solar sails, and other large systems.
Hacker News users discuss the feasibility and practicality of DARPA's bio-engineered space structure concept. Several express skepticism about the project's timeline and the biological challenges involved, questioning the maturity of the underlying science and the ability to scale such a project within the proposed budget and timeframe. Some highlight the potential benefits of using biological systems for space construction, such as self-repair and adaptability, while others suggest focusing on more established materials science approaches. The discussion also touches upon the ethical implications of introducing engineered life forms into space and the potential for unintended consequences. A few commenters note the ambitious nature of the project and the possibility that it serves primarily as a stimulus for research and development in related fields.
Summary of Comments ( 880 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43700607
Hacker News commenters express concern over the potential disruption to vulnerability disclosure caused by DHS's failure to renew the MITRE CVE contract. Several highlight the importance of the CVE program for security researchers and software vendors, fearing a negative impact on vulnerability tracking and patching. Some speculate about the reasons behind the non-renewal, suggesting bureaucratic inefficiency or potential conflicts of interest. Others propose alternative solutions, including community-driven or distributed CVE management, and question the long-term viability of the current centralized system. Several users also point out the irony of a government agency responsible for cybersecurity failing to handle its own contracting effectively. A few commenters downplay the impact, suggesting the transition to a new organization might ultimately improve the CVE system.
The Hacker News post titled "CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract" generated several comments discussing the implications of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)'s failure to renew the contract for maintaining the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program.
Several commenters express concern about the potential disruption to vulnerability tracking and the impact on cybersecurity efforts. One user highlights the importance of the CVE program, calling it "critical infrastructure for the internet," and expresses worry that its demise would significantly hamper vulnerability management. Another user questions the rationale behind CISA's decision, speculating about potential bureaucratic issues or disagreements with MITRE, the current CVE maintainer.
The discussion also touches on the possibility of MITRE continuing the program independently, with some users suggesting that MITRE might be better off without government involvement. One commenter mentions a potential conflict of interest, suggesting the government might be incentivized to suppress certain vulnerabilities. Another user expresses skepticism about MITRE's ability to manage the program effectively without government funding.
Some comments focus on the practical implications of the contract lapse, such as the potential for delays in vulnerability disclosures and the impact on vulnerability scanning tools. One user points out the potential chaos that could ensue if CVE identifiers are no longer reliably assigned, hindering effective vulnerability management.
Several commenters discuss alternative vulnerability databases and the potential for a fragmented landscape in the absence of a central authority like CVE. Some users suggest existing databases like the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) could fill the gap, while others express concerns about the reliability and comprehensiveness of these alternatives. The idea of a community-driven or open-source alternative to CVE is also raised.
A few commenters offer more cynical perspectives, suggesting the whole situation might be a result of government incompetence or a deliberate attempt to weaken cybersecurity defenses. One user speculates that the contract lapse could be a pretext for creating a new, government-controlled vulnerability database.
Overall, the comments reflect a significant level of concern within the Hacker News community about the potential consequences of the CVE contract lapse. Many users emphasize the critical role of the CVE program in maintaining internet security and express hope for a swift resolution to the situation. The discussion also highlights the complexities of vulnerability management and the challenges of maintaining a reliable and comprehensive vulnerability database.