Comment by CharlesW
2 years ago
So WordPress-the-org — which is effectively Matt, as far as I can tell — just Sherlocked a developer's plug-in using the developer's own code, ostensibly as retribution for a security issue that the developer had already fixed. https://www.advancedcustomfields.com/blog/acf-6-3-8-security...
What am I missing?
That ACF security update was not made available on WordPress.org due to ACF maintainers being blocked from accessing WordPress.org, according to WordPress.org's blog https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine-banned/
> Sherlocked
The verb you're looking for is stole
Sherloking is when a Walmart is built next to a cornershop. Here the dude tore open the corner shop while claiming to be a victim.
When I posted, I was under the impression that ACF was open source. But the GitHub repo doesn’t list one, so if it’s not open source…WTF.
Forking isn't the issue. Here they just took the whole ID/address from which existing installations will continue to be updated from. This is theft. I have no doubt it will be added to the lawsuit.
While technically they own the platform and can do whatever they want, there is clearly ill intent here and it'll be used against them.
I think being GPL is a requirement to host plugins in wp.org, so yes, that free version available there is (was?) open source.
> When I posted, I was under the impression that ACF was open source. But the GitHub repo doesn’t list one, so if it’s not open source…WTF.
Isn't it here?
https://github.com/AdvancedCustomFields/acf
If you mean the licence, it's in readme.txt:
https://github.com/AdvancedCustomFields/acf/blob/master/read...
8 replies →
Or, more blatant and accurate, Sherlocking is when Apple literally named their search product "Sherlock" when a popular third party shareware app named "Watson" already existed.
This release fixes a separate security vulnerability from the original update.
Unfortunately you have no proof of that, because the only relevant changes are actually neither introducing fixes, nor ever changing the plugin core code in a way that fixes security issues. The only thing done is removing a LOT of references, links, and instructions that would remind of WP Engine, as well as all compatibility with the POR features.
Then, you added a few irrelevant changes that to the inexperienced eye look like security fixes https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?old_path=%2Fadv...
However, these are no fixes. You just introduce a new variable, that you never use, and re-assign the same contents of that new variable back to the $_REQUEST
Unless you show proof of a security fix - which you could have pushed to users WITHOUT renaming the plugin, WITHOUT removing original, non-security related code, and WITHOUT breaking compatibility with the PRO features - you have LIED and STOLEN code in the name of WP.ORG
This will hopefully be recognized by WP Engine and if god wills, remove you from the equation once and for all legally speaking.
> However, these are no fixes. You just introduce a new variable, that you never use, and re-assign the same contents of that new variable back to the $_REQUEST
While this whole takeover thing is completely ridiculous, it's you who displays an "inexperienced eye" here. What do you think the $original_post variable (which was already there) is doing, huh?
11 replies →
Can anyone else prove this security vulnerability actually existed?
It doesn't matter. Matt didn't have the right to hijack ACF.
5 replies →
There is no proof, see my comment above.
You are abusing the community for your own gain. Stop!
So far as I can tell, when Matt talks about "the WordPress Community", he means:
And the community of people who _use_ WordPress to run their websites, and the people who help them to do that, and the 3rd party plugin and theme developers who make WP work for so many different kinds of websites - can all go and get fucked.
What is he gaining at this point?
7 replies →
The maintainers [1] and the Wordpress project’s core security team lead [2] said that the fix was already published, despite your blocking them from publishing it directly and irresponsibly disclosing the issue out of spite [3].
Was that not true?
[1] https://x.com/wp_acf/status/1843376378210857441
[2] https://x.com/johnbillion/status/1843750679141331039
[3] https://x.com/johnbillion/status/1842627564453454049
Sorry, I misread, disregard. I’d delete the comment but HN won’t let me.
[flagged]