• xor@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    after looking into it:
    it’s not and it never was.
    a) it’s open source, so nobody’s putting that shit in there without getting caught
    b) it had an opt-in error reporting feature that would send data back… that was the entire thing…

    • drislands@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      What? You must be joking. Really? The entire thing was about opt-in error reporting?

      … seriously, that can’t be it, can it?

    • books@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Point a has always me me wonder, is that accurate? Are there actually people going through the code to make sure open source isn’t malicious? I can barely read my coworkers code… Let alone a strangers.

      • xor@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        people are definitely going through the code on a project as popular as audacity…
        less well known stuff is much less scrutinized, of course

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Its way less work than going through the code to check for telemetry unless it is an intentionally hidden attack- just use Wireshark and check if there is network traffic other than checking for an update on program start.

      • lemmeee@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        If a project is popular people will make changes to it every day. But you can look at the repo and judge for yourself.