Search Results: "cas"

15 July 2026

Freexian Collaborators: Debian Contributions: Python 3.14 as default transition, DebConf 26 preparations, debvm, pconr and more! (by Anupa Ann Joseph)

Debian Contributions: 2026-06 Contributing to Debian is part of Freexian s mission. This article covers the latest achievements of Freexian and their collaborators. All of this is made possible by organizations subscribing to our Long Term Support contracts and consulting services.

Python 3.14 as default transition, by Stefano Rivera Debian has had Python 3.13 and 3.14 in unstable and testing since December 2025, with Python 3.13 as the default version (/usr/bin/python3 = 3.13). This gave time for packages to implement support and detect issues in their test suites. A slot to transition to 3.14 as default was requested from the release team in March, and they indicated that we would likely be able to schedule it in late June. In preparation, Stefano reviewed the open bugs against Python interpreters and squashed some in uploads of the latest point releases of Python: 3.13.14 and 3.14.6. Also in June, Python 3.15.0 beta 2 and beta 3 released. Stefano uploaded these to Debian experimental. The 3.15 betas were reason to attempt to revive review of a blocked upstream patch to support Debian multiarch in stable ABI Python extensions, now that Python 3.15 is adding a new stable ABI abi3t.

DebConf 26 preparations, by Stefano Rivera, Antonio Terceiro, Lucas Kanashiro, Santiago Ruano Rinc n and Anupa Ann Joseph DebConf 26, the annual Debian Developer Conference, is being held in Santa Fe, Argentina, in July. Stefano Rivera, Antonio Terceiro, Lucas Kanashiro, Santiago Ruano and Anupa Ann Joseph contributed to the preparations for the event.
  • As usual, Stefano has been supporting the conference website and registration, helping the local team to get accurate data on attendee numbers.
  • Antonio has been supporting the conference website and helping the content team to put together the conference schedule.
  • Santiago has been helping the local team on different topics regarding logistics.
  • Anupa assisted with the accommodation arrangements for DebCamp and DebConf, working alongside Nattie.
  • Lucas has been coordinating the conference schedule and communicating with some speakers.

debvm, by Helmut Grohne The debvm tool used for creating and running ephemeral virtual machines saw a number of small improvements. The requirement of having a filesystem label has been removed in favor of using a uuid and /etc/fstab is no longer created. A memory balloon is enabled by default and this enables qemu to automatically release free guest memory to the host. Booting Ubuntu VMs regressed as a result of their use of uutils and has been fixed. The --architecture flag is back to be able to better support Hurd, which is a work-in-progress of Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues. Thanks to Jochen Sprickerhof, you can more easily create VMs for autopkgtest-virt-qemu using --hook-dir=/usr/share/mmdebstrap/hooks/autopkgtest-create-qemu. There also are a few documentation and error message improvements. All of this is pending in git waiting to be uploaded once development slows down. While booting a machine from virtiofsd succeeded, turning the proof-of-concept into production remains for later.

pconr, by Helmut Grohne At DebConf25, Helmut reported on a schroot substitute called unschroot. The second iteration uses varlink IPC to construct a container. That varlink API is now separated into a new project called programmable container runtime. It is meant to provide more flexibility in constructing containers than established solutions such as the unshare command from util-linux, bubblewrap or podman provide while still managing repetitive complexity such as process orchestration for the developer. A new example that uses this infrastructure is a better containment for mmdebstrap eliminating chroot escape. There also is an asyncvarlink/0.3.2 release taking steps to become more maintainable in Debian to eventually get pconr into Debian.

Miscellaneous contributions
  • Stefano did routine uploads (mostly new upstream versions) of python-pip, python-pipx, hatchling, dh-python, beautifulsoup4, python-virtualenv, python-mitogen.
  • Stefano uploaded a snowball mini-transition: snowball, snowball-data, and pystemmer
  • Stefano did some debian.net team admin, setting up a container and later a VM for vote.debian.net.
  • Stefano responded to a semi-escalation to the Debian Technical Committee, after some communication between an upstream, a bug reporter, and a Debian package maintainer went sideways and got heated.
  • Emilio managed several transitions, and filed bugs against the few remaining GCC 13 rdeps.
  • Antonio did salsa maintenance work, debugging service issues, approving user registrations, and processing support requests.
  • Antonio worked on Debian CI maintenance, including but not limited to deploying new armhf and armel workers, fixing bugs and preparing an upcoming release of debci.
  • Antonio did several maintenance tasks for MiniDebConf websites.
  • Antonio uploaded ruby-bunny, ruby-sinatra and ruby-mustermann, fixing a few FTBFS bugs among them.
  • Carles using po-debconf-manager: Reviewed Catalan translations for 5 packages, submitted 6 packages. Added a draft blog/update about the po-debconf-manager project.
  • Carles submitted a new Geeqie Catalan translation: it had accumulated a large number of untranslated strings over the last 4 years.
  • Carles contributed to the Debian wiki: improved documentation for the Framework Laptop and added a new section Battery charging control (after doing some debugging and testing). He wrote a page about Signal Desktop. Carles started looking at testing/documenting Mailman2 -> Mailman3 migration.
  • Carles, in relation to the migration process, double checked old pages without relevant information in the Debian wiki.
  • Thorsten did another upload of package hplip to fix some bugs.
  • In the context of the Google Summer of Code 2026 project, Santiago continued co-mentoring Aryan Karamtoth, who is working on the Linux live-patching project. As part of the team, Santiago guided Aryan to help design the different workflows and to study the different tools available, including the upstream klp-build (that was introduced in v6.19), and compare it with SUSE s klp-build.
  • Colin clarified the bug tracking system s documentation to indicate that maintainers may sometimes reasonably ask users to file bugs upstream themselves.
  • Colin fixed 15 packages for pytest 9.1.
  • Colin fixed a depthcharge-tools regression with Python 3.14 as default that broke debian-installer builds.
  • Helmut continued to report undeclared file conflicts and correspond about them.
  • Helmut wrote patches for strace to enable cross building and a 32bit personality on arm64.
  • Helmut continued maintaining rebootstrap working fixing build failures in fontconfig, gettext and sqlite3 as well as changing the way packages from gcc builds are installed to better serve a need reported by Samuel Thibault.

14 July 2026

Gunnar Wolf: Got your keys ready for DebConf26?

Yay! Finally it s that time of year DebCamp is underway, and soon it will be time for DebConf! As it is by now tradition, it s my task to coordinate the DebConf26 keysigning party. And, as usual, I have set up the list of DebConf26 keysigning maps for everybody involved. So, if you are taking part of DebConf, make sure to:

11 July 2026

Reproducible Builds: Reproducible Builds in June 2026

Welcome to the June 2026 report from the Reproducible Builds project! In these reports, we outline the most important things that we have been up to over the past month. As a quick recap about what problem our project intends to solve, whilst anyone may inspect the source code of free software for malicious flaws, almost all software is distributed to end users as pre-compiled binaries. The motivation behind the reproducible builds effort is to ensure no flaws have been introduced during this compilation process by promising identical results are always generated from a given source, thus allowing multiple third-parties to come to a consensus on whether a build was compromised or not. If you are interested in contributing to the project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. In this month s report, we cover:

  1. Only installing reproducible packages with repro-threshold
  2. Distribution work
  3. diffoscope development
  4. From our mailing list
  5. Documentation updates
  6. Patches
  7. Four new scholarly papers


Only installing reproducible packages with repro-threshold A very interesting demonstration is now available showing how you might configure your Debian system to only install packages that have been reproduced by m/n rebuilders. This is implemented via a reproduced+https:// APT transport ( a mechanism for communicating between the APT client and its repository source commonly HTTP):
Every package download is intercepted by repro-threshold, which queries two independent rebuilders for a signed attestation before allowing installation to proceed. [It] is important to note that [an] install will only succeed if all package dependencies are also reproducible.
The demo gives examples of how to quickly experiment with this using a Docker container.

Distribution work In Debian this month: The IzzyOnDroid Android APK repository reached its next milestone this month, now covering 2 out of every 3 apps (66.7%) with reproducible builds. Their documentation for debugging and fixing failed builds has steadily grown as well. More clients have picked up showing reproducibility results (e.g. Droid-ify), and Neo Store now can be configured to stick to only reproducible applications. Further, an independent builder has been added to the build farm, increasing the trust level even more as APK builds can have multiple confirmations now. At the same time, IzzyOnDroid s rbtlog got several new features. The most outstanding is caching for frequently used resources such as reproducible-apk-tools, command-line tools and NodeJS in order to counter ongoing issues with GitHub availability, while at the same time saving bandwidth and build time. This change also enables some other some smaller enhancements such as being able to configure build timeouts per recipe for those builds running longer than the average, release pattern filtering for update checks or having a field for maintainer notes to shortly summing up e.g. why a reproducible build failed.
Lastly, Bernhard M. Wiedemann posted another openSUSE monthly update for their reproducibility work there.

diffoscope development diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. This month, Chris Lamb made the following changes, including preparing and uploading versions 319, 320, 321, 322 and 323 to Debian:
  • Debian adds an extra Flags: line in the output of ocamlobjinfo, so adjust the test for cross-distribution compatibility. [ ]
  • Bump debhelper compatibility level to 14. [ ]
  • Fix compatibility with Ocaml 5.4.1. [ ]
  • Use --long-form-style arguments when calling apktool in order to support apktool version 3. [ ]
  • Support Androguard version 4 and previous versions at the same time. [ ]
  • Update copyright years. [ ]
In addition, Jochen Sprickerhof added better header detection for the Sphinx documentation system [ ], Michael Daniels fixed the tests when run with zipdetails version 4.006 [ ] and Zbigniew J drzejewski-Szmek added a version of the deprecated os.path.commonprefix method [ ]. In addition, Vagrant Cascadian updated diffoscope in GNU Guix to version 321 and 323.
Chris Lamb also made the following changes to strip-nondeterminism, our tool to remove specific non-deterministic results from a completed build:
  • Skip symlinks when manually called via /usr/bin/strip-nondeterminism. (#1139000)
  • Update debian/watch format. [ ]
  • Drop Rules-Requires-Root: no and Priority: optional fields. [ ]
  • Bump Standards-Version to version 4.7.4. [ ]

From our mailing list On our mailing list this month:
  • kpcyrd posted to our mailing list regarding the waves of malware uploads to aur.archlinux.org . Curiously, every incident I looked at used npmjs.com for malware delivery , specifically where the npm package includes an (automatically executed) preinstall script that is an ELF binary.
  • kpcyrd also announced the release of debian-repro-status version 0.4.0, a tool written to give you an approximate idea of how viable it would be to enforce a reproducible packages only update policy for the computer system you ve built :
    The change updates dependencies to the latest versions, and adds support for multiple -H options, to query results from multiple rebuilderd instances. The results are also now fetched concurrently.
  • kpcyrd also reported that, whilst taking a screenshot for the above release, they noticed that the debian:sid container now is 100% reproducible.
  • Finally, kpcyrd also created a pull request against the add-determinism package to update the itertools and zip Python dependencies.

Documentation updates Yet again, there were a number of improvements made to our website this month including:
  • Chris Lamb added a reminder re. using the UTC variants of the Javascript Date methods. [ ]
  • Mattia Rizzolo moved OTF to the old sponsors list. Thank you for your support!. [ ]
  • kpcyrd updated the Rust documentation to recommend using the --release argument for consistency. [ ]

Patches The Reproducible Builds project detects, dissects and attempts to fix as many currently-unreproducible packages as possible. We endeavour to send all of our patches upstream where applicable or possible. This month, we wrote a large number of such patches, including:

Four new scholarly papers Kenichiro Muto and Kuniyasu Suzaki of the Institute of Information Security in Yokohama, Japan published an interesting paper this month titled Attestable Build Chain: Enabling Trust in Reproducible Builds (PDF). Their abstract is as follows: Ensuring trust in software supply chains requires verifying not only artifacts but also the processes that produce them. Although Reproducible Builds (R-B) require rebuilding to validate artifacts, they cannot verify whether the build was executed with the intended toolchain and inputs and may reproduce unintended or compromised builds without detection. We present Attestable Build Chain, a framework for externally verifying build-time execution without rebuilding. Rather than preventing compromise, it provides verifiable, tamper-evident evidence of actual build-time execution, enabling verification of build process integrity from observed file accesses during the build. [ ]
Julien Malka, Stefano Zacchiroli and Th o Zimmermann published a 50-page report detailing A Decade of Software Reproducibility in the Nix Package Ecosystem:
We find that functional package management enables extremely high rebuildability over time (near-universal ability to reconstitute historical build environments and rebuild software packages), while bitwise reproducibility has steadily improved and reaches a high point in recent years (up to 93% in 2024). Early years show substantially lower bitwise reproducibility, indicating that functional package management alone does not guarantee bitwise-identical outputs, and that the observed high level of bitwise reproducibility is not solely due to the package management approach. Common causes of unreproducibility, both in the rebuildability and bitwise reproducibility dimensions, include management of dates in build and test processes; we quantify their prevalence and other common causes using manual analysis of logs of rebuild failures and automated analysis of diffoscope.
A PDF of their report is available online
Tim Bastin of L3montree GmbH and Jacek Galowicz of Applicative Systems GmbH from DevGuard published a paper detailing How We Built a Sovereign, Reproducible Container Supply Chain for DevGuard:
This paper presents how the DevGuard project rebuilt its OCI container pipeline around reproducible Nix builds and independent dual-platform digest verification. DevGuard images are built hermetically from pinned source revisions, signed with Sigstore/Cosign, and verified through digest comparison across GitHub Actions and sovereign GitLab infrastructure hosted on container.gov.de. We describe the practical integration of reproducible OCI image builds into existing CI/CD workflows and argue that independently reproducible container digests provide a stronger integrity guarantee against build tampering than provenance alone. The paper further discusses remaining trust assumptions and the relevance of sovereign build infrastructure for government and regulated environments.

Finally, Yiseul Choi, Junga Kim, Jun-Ho Hong and Seongmin Kim of the Department of Convergence Security Engineering at the Sungshin Women s University in Seoul, Korea titled Attestation-based verification of SBOM integrity via consumer-side reproducibility:
Software bills of materials (SBOMs) support supply chain transparency, but they do not prove that a delivered SBOM reproducibly corresponds to its software artifact. Existing signing and provenance mechanisms protect integrity and traceability, yet lack consumer-side reproducible verification. We propose an SBOM integrity verification framework combining procedure disclosure, consumer-side reproduction, authority-generated reference evidence, and digest comparison. A trusted authority records a reference digest, and consumers compare it with locally reproduced and delivered SBOM digests. Experiments on 100 real-world container images show detection of artifact tampering, SBOM substitution, distribution modification, and adaptive tampering beyond signature-based approaches


Finally, if you are interested in contributing to the Reproducible Builds project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. However, you can get in touch with us via:

Jamie McClelland: DNS, OG of high availability

At May First, we recently received (all within a single week) three different complaints about domain names that previously worked fine suddenly not resolving to our servers. While that isn t terribly uncommon, we discovered that in each case, the domain name s authoritative name servers were pointing to our mail servers (a.mx.mayfirst.org, b.mx.mayfirst.org and c.mx.mayfirst.org) instead of our name servers (a.ns.mayfirst.org, b.ns.mayfirst.org and c.ns.mayfirst.org). The weird part: this mistaken configuration was happening at the registrar level, protected by each member s own credentials that we don t have access to. Each affected member fixed their records to resolve the problem but also made very clear that they had not logged into their registrar in years, sugggesting that the DNS authoritative records in their registrar accounts spontaneously changed on their own. The first time was weird, the second time could possibly be a coincidence? But by the third time this happened, we started to panic. How could registrar records spontaneously change? All three domain names were registered with different companies - so it couldn t be a single registrar problem? Are we going to get a flood of these complaints? What is going on!?!? We did an inventory to see if this was happening with other domain names in use by our membership and that s when we discovered just how hard it is for our mostly non-technical users to set a domain s authoritative name servers. The error rate was less than 1% but still that was a lot of domain names with typos: That s when it occurred to me: for years we have maintained an offsite server that provides both c.ns.mayfirst.org and c.mx.mayfirst.org. It hangs out in case something terrible happens to our main colo. The week before we started receiving these complaints, I separated these services, moving c.mx.mayfirst.org to a dedicated MX server. As a result, these two domain names stopped pointing to the same IP address. And that s when the complaints started rolling in. In other words: the affected members set the incorrect name servers years ago, but because just one of the name servers resolved to an IP that happened to provide the correct authoritative lookup services, it went undeteced all this time. So mystery solved. Nobody s authoritative registrar records suddenly changed. They were mis-configured for years but thanks to the amazing resilience of the DNS system, nobody noticed because just one working DNS server is all you need.

6 July 2026

Aigars Mahinovs: How to make a good group photo

Taking a good group photo consists of multiple aspects: I can say with confidence that nearly everything here comes from having failed to do these things right at least once, even on the latest attempts, so this is an ideal to reach towards, not something we expect to hit every time. The Goal The main goal of a big event group photo is capture both the moment itself and each individual person inside that moment. We want people, who were not there to see all the people involved and get an impression of what it was like being there. It needs to show the breadth and depth of people that make up this group, this project. And we want people who were there to be able to look back the next week, the next year or in ten years and remember - ah, yes, I was there, I was standing right there with this grin on my face next to this wonderful person and I was feeling great. Hardware Based on the goal we want to have high level photographic gear that is able to capture both a broad enough picture to encompass all the people and some of their surroundings to communicate the context (without undue distortions) and to deliver enough detail and resolution so that faces and facial expressions and underlying feelings of every single person in that group could be clearly seen and preserved. To both capture the context and minimise distortion the final picture should be just a bit wider than normal human field of view. That is about 50mm for a full-frame camera or 35mm for a typical 1.6 crop camera. You can go a bit wider if there are no better alternatives (as detailed in the scouting section), but be prepared that corners of the image will be distorted and not really usable (but we can fix that in processing step). Or you can go to unusual aspect ratios, like we did in Debconf 10. In the absence of a 100MP+ camera, you will need to be stitching together multiple frames to achieve resolution high enough to have enough pixels-per-face to see emotions clearly. This means that the photos you will actually be taking will be tighter than the overall field of view mentioned above. Still, a higher resolution camera body is preferable - nowadays 24MP-32MP cameras APS-C provide a good compromise between resolution and price, but 45-67MP full-frame cameras also exist on the market. Assume that we will be shooting in a bright environment, so most likely with quite low ISO settings, that means that high-ISO noise characteristics of more expensive cameras will not really play a role here. You will also not need very fast burst modes, even manual speed of one frame per second is sufficient. You will also want to get as much detail as possible out of your lens, and this is the most important part. You can do amazing work in all other steps of the process and have a great camera too, but if you pair it with a lens that is not sharp, then the end result will be disappointing. You want the lens that is sharpest corner-to-corner when stepped down to about f/8-f/11, that you can get for your system. You also want that lens to be about 85mm full-size sensor or 50mm for 1.6 crop size. Luckily that kind of range is also a great range for optical design and sharpest lenses are typically available in exactly these kinds of sizes. You absolutely want to have a fixed focal length lens, not a zoom lens. Even profession grade zoom lenses often deliver worse image quality compared to fixed lenses that cost less 1/10th of their price (when shooting in the same focal length). Newer design lenses are better than older lenses - optical design, coatings and precision manufacturing have advanced a lot over the decades. Retro look is great for mood, but not as good for actual resolution and clarity. You don't need to overpay for most expensive lenses because those often only improve image quality on lower F-stops. To encompass the whole group we will need to shoot at f/8 and in bright light, so the extra benefits of those f/1.2-capable super expensive lenses will not come into play here. We will have no use for a flash here. A tripod will be too restrictive when rapidly repositioning the camera between different parts of the panorama shoot. But a monopod might help with stability - I have not tried that myself, however. For my last photos I used a Canon EOS R7 (32.5MP) with Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens and considering an upgrade to Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC DN for the next time. Scouting Scouting a good location for the group photo is another big chunk of a successful picture. The critical piece of the puzzle is lens-to-face distance. In order to keep everyone's face in-focus and have enough resolution on the farthest faces (without making nearest faces truly massive) we want to do everything possible to reduce the variance in lens-to-face distance - to reduce the difference in distance between closest and farthest face. The most effective way to do that is to have the photographer climb higher. To see this in action on the Debconf photos, compare Debconf6 (very high camera position, group on level ground - good) to Debconf10 (camera not too high, group on stairs, still good) and to Debconf17 (camera could not get high enough and the group is on flat ground - not great). Even the Debconf25 photo was suboptimal from this perspective. The Debconf23 photo was a very good example from the recent years - good height and also the group was positioned in a semi-circle so there were no people directly in front and very near to the camera. So you are looking for the highest point you could get to (even if that requires a special permission of key or a ladder) with a field large enough to fit the whole group comfortably. How to check that? Normally I simply take a photo from the top of the whole area and note down from there where the extreme corners of the group could be and still be fully seen in the shot - not blocked by trees, buildings and shadows. Then I go down and measure that space. Rule of thumb being - people in one horizontal line can stand 1 normal length step from each other and two horizontal lines can be half a step from each other vertically. So I can just measure a rough rectangle in steps, multiply the sides, multiply that by two and I have the rough number of people that can fit there for the photo. Once you have a candidate location or two, it is important to check them at the same time-of-day as you plan to do the photo (see organization section for that). You want to make sure that the whole area of the group is in the same illumination - if half of the group is in the sun and half in a shadow, then you will be having a very bad time later. The absolute ideal positioning for the group photo is to have everyone be in shadow, but still have enough bright skies and bright buildings in front of the people to give good illumination of the faces. Worst you can do is have the sun be behind the people (so all the faces are really dark) and second worst is have the sun be directly in front of the group, so that the faces are very well illuminated, but everyone's eyes are closed because they are being blinded by the sun. And sometimes all you can do is pray for some light clouds to provide for even and dispersed light. Debconf23 was very lucky that way. Another consideration is to how people are going to get to that place. You need to consider accessibility needs of people (it is ok, if it takes more effort or time, but it needs to be organized and communicated well in advance). And you need to consider how the big masses of people will be getting there - how to tell people where exactly it is and how to get there from various locations where people might be hanging out during the event? Having an alternate location indoors might be necessary if the weather report for the next days is not sufficiently predictable. We had to use that contingency in Debconf9, for example. Organization It's hard to take a good group photo if half of the group does not show up or is too late, so this needs some organization to happen smoothly. First of all you need to choose date and time for the photo. The photo does not take too much time from the schedule of the event and can be squeezed in after all the other events are already scheduled. In fact I prefer that as it allows you the flexibility of choosing the date based on weather conditions and time based on light and shadow conditions in potential photo spots. You don't want to choose the daytrip day as most people will be away and return times are not really predictable. You do not want to choose the morning after Cheese and Wine party for obvious reasons. First day and last two days are also sub-optimal as some people arrive late and some leave early for various personal reasons. Also you don't want it to happen just before Cheese and Wine either because then you'd have very little time and clarity to do the processing of the image on the same day. For timing, the best way, in my experience, is to schedule the photo directly after the end of talk sessions before a meal break - lunch or dinner. Typically in the Debconf schedule there are 2-3 daily breaks planned, say for Debconf25 there was lunch, afternoon break and dinner. Talks are planned to end ~10 minutes before those breaks (and meals) begin, so for example, afternoon break starts at 16:00 and all talks in the previous block end at 15:50. In such a case just schedule the "Group photo" event from 15:50 to 16:05. This gives people the info to go there directly from the end of all talks and that they will have sufficient time for break/meal afterwards. Do not forget to specify the location (as exactly as possible) in that event entry and make sure to post it at least two days in advance. People often want to wear something specific for the photo and thus need to know about it in advance. This also makes sure that people do not make alternate food plans for that specific break and don't leave the venue. Announce the date, time and the exact location as wide as possible, don't be shy. Announce and discuss mailing lists, IRC, Signal, Telegram, make sure the front desk knows in case anyone asks in-person, ... Check that it is again included in the announcements email on the day preceding the photo date. When the date has arrived, it is a good idea to check in early with people with special mobility needs to make sure they know where to go, how to get there and how much time they will need to be able to get there on time. As the final round of talks before the group photo is starting up, it is time to recruit "runners". I've had great success with this technique. The idea is pretty simple - for each room where people congregate (talk rooms, hacklabs, cafeteria, outside hackspace, front-desk, ...) go there and choose one person. You want to choose a person that you will recognise and remember among everyone else in the group, either because of who they are or what they are wearing, whatever works best for you. If they agree to help, instruct them to: "at end of talk, announce that the group photo happening now and the location, herd people towards the photo location, be the last person out, make sure there are no stragglers from this area behind you, when you arrive to the photo place I will assume that everyone else from this room is also now there, when you are there catch my attention and show this sign so I know for sure that it is all good and make sure that I did see it from you". With that sorted out all you will need to remember is how many runners you recruited and how many have reported in to figure out if everyone has now arrived or if we still have to wait for someone or some group. Then you will only have one last point of organization left - shaping the crowd into a group. People will not know what your vision for the group photo is, so you will have to give clear and LOUD instructions on where people should not be standing. Use clear, large gestures to support your words. You want to compact the group, have the people that just joined in the last moment and are standing to the side come deeper in and join the crowd. Have any holes in the middle of the crowd filled in. Forming a semi-circle instead of a blob helps with averaging face-to-lens distances. Make sure people are not in unexpected shadows. Make sure carried objects, like umbrellas of flags do not cover the faces of other people. Take the time to look at everyone face to make sure there are no people hiding behind someone's shoulder - typically they are not aware that their face is in fact not really visible. If there are such people, call them out and point directly at them and encourage them to step forward, if they wish to do so. You are the only one seeing the final picture now and only you can correct it before capturing the moment. So a few extra seconds here are worth taking, even if 300+ people are standing in scorching heat and waiting on you. When you are happy with what you are seeing, make sure to tell people clearly that you are now about to take the pictures and again remind them not to move and explicitly not to turn their heads to the side until you are done (this is the source of most of the extra work in processing). Be very loud and clear and make sure you have everyone's undivided attention before you start saying the important stuff. When done - say so. There will be other groups that will want to also have a photo taken after the main group is a bit more dispersed, so don't run away. Typically at least the T-shirt group will want a picture and also all the organizers. Final bit of organization during the group photo shooting itself is the sneaky self-insert. You may choose not to bother with it, or do it in the simplest way, like I did in Debconf6, but if you really want to blend in with the crowd, you need to have someone else take a photo of you in the exact same location at the same date and time from the same location. So you should already during shaping the crowd decide where you would fit in, it is easiest to blend in at the back of the crowd and to one or other side, so that it appears like you are just standing behind the shoulders of a couple peoples. Remember that spot - it is easiest if you stand in the exact same ground spot when your photo is taken. Just go down, recruit a volunteer to take your photo, make sure the settings are fixed to the same ones as for the group photo shots and have them take a handful of shots of you - one of you centered in the camera frame and a couple more with you more towards the corners of the frame. This distortion from being off-center in the frame may be important later. Preparation In addition to preparing the crowd for the photo, you also need to prepare yourself and the equipment. Make sure you have dusted your camera sensor and cleaned both inside and outside glass of your lens. It is usually a good idea to remove any filters from the lens. Install the hood, if that could help with blocking the sun flares. Make sure you have the right lens and that you have installed the right lens. For fixed settings I typically shoot in JPEG with RAW being there more like an emergency backup. The extra dynamic range of RAW could be used, but it is really complex to do that in combination with image blending and it is hard to get right, so I prefer an all-JPEG workflow and fix the dynamic range in the scene itself, before shooting. For Canon I am using the Standard profile that boosts the color saturation and sharpness a bit as I just enjoy that look and find it hard to get anything significantly better from RAW data even with a lot of effort. In any case make sure you have enough space on the cards to take at least 100 images and that you have a full battery. Do not use high speed burst setting because it is then too easy to take too many pictures at the start of the sequence and be stuck with your camera still in "Busy" state writing big RAW files to slowish SD cards and not allowing you to finish the full picture rapidly. You want to have the shutter speed at at least 1/100th of a second to prevent blur from both your hand movements and also from people in the shot moving around a bit (image stabilisation will not help you there). And you want to have the aperture to be around f/8 - lower apertures risk people in front or behind falling out of focus, make the lenses look less sharp. Higher apertures also start to become less sharp due to diffraction effects above f/8. ISO should stay as low as possible, ideally at ISO 100, but if there is not enough light then upping the ISO to 400 would be the first step that I would try to do and second would be decreasing the aperture to f/5.6. If there is too much light, then increasing the shutter speed should be the safe thing to do. As people start to arrive into the shooting location - check the exposure and nail down the settings, ideally in manual mode. Consider that left side could be a bit lighter or darker than right side. Err on the side of making the picture a bit too dark as there is more depth to darkness before cut-off compared to clipping on the high end. However, do not trust the exposure detection, instead take a picture and look specifically at skin tones in faces of people that already are standing in the photo area. Faces are the key bit and the exposure needs to be adjusted just to the faces and ignore darker of lighter clothing. Do some test shots and find settings where faces look not too bright, but also not very dark and fix those settings in manual mode. Now you are ready for the action. Shape the crowd, check the faces and the action can start! Execution During taking of the group photo you want to finish it fast, but at the same time you have to take the time to make it right. If you hurry too much under pressure, you risk being left with unusably blurry images and the whole effort wasted. Having already prepared and verified the manual settings makes it easier. When you are taking pictures, you have to remain as still as possible - even at very high shutter speeds even slow hand movements are still bad for image quality. So think of the movement as of biathlon athlete shooting the very middle of five, very separate targets - take a burst, reframe, then steady up for a second and only then take the next burst. 3 frames per burst are sufficient. 90% of the time the very first photo of a burst will be best. As you move from frame to frame, aim for just a bit more than half-frame overlap. This will give the opportunity to skip frames if all is good, but also have backup coverage of every face in case of problems. Proceed systematically, I typically start off on the top left of the crowd, then go right until the end of the line, then shift down half a frame and go left until the end and repeat until I am done with the crowd. After that it is very helpful to also immediately take photos of a "frame" around the whole crowd. Stitching process often distorts the frames in weird ways that leave holes in the resulting image that you can fill if you have a wide frame around the crowd. It is possible to compensate with creative cutouts in the final image (like Debconf9), but the more framing room you make, the more flexible you will be able to be with cropping of the final photo. The frame also gives you the opportunity to capture more of the context of the place and space. As an example, Debconf25 group photo in the end consisted from 9 images + 1 for sick people + 1 for me. I ended up missing the framing shots for bottom left, top left and top right corners. To get there I took 68 images. And in some years it was more than a hundred. Processing This part might be less stressful than taking the pictures from intensity perspective, but it lasts longer. Depending on you luck, skill and perfectionism it can take anywhere from 3 to 9 hours of work to complete. Before you start, however, you should first request things that you will need for other people. This can even be done before taking the actual group photo, but usually I forget. To finish the photo you will need three things: The first two you should be able to get from the respective organizers. The motto is harder. I typically try to ask the current DPL to come up with something describing the current mood of the project or of the event, but it is rare that it is that easy. Most of the time I came up with something as I was editing the photo and reflecting on what was the mood, the feeling, the mojo of this conference and of this year was like. Bend that around a recognisable phrase or expression, make it a bit more insider-relevant and you are on the right path. Some years this was the hardest part. For the panorama stitching I will describe the workflow that has served me good for years, but maybe there are better ways possible nowadays. Feel free to let me know! First I would save all photos taken and select one sharpest photo from every burst. Next I would select the minimal number of photos that appear to be covering the entire crowd. The fewer images you use, the better in the end because the most quality problems crop up in the areas where photos are getting stitched together. Fewer seams leads to fewer issues. Open Hugin (you will also need enblend and enfuse installed) and import your minimal set of images into it. Click the "Align" button and wait a while - the processor will be trying to figure out keypoints in each image and then try to match these points between the images to try to fit them all together into a single projection. To do that it will distort the images. This is the trial and error process part. You may need to add, remove or replace images to get the stitching to work or to work better. You may want to add more of the frame images to fill the ragged holes around the image. After initial alignment, go to "Move/Drag" tab and move the image a bit up in the projected field of view and make it a bit more central visually. That will help a bit with the distortions in the near-by people and people in the corners of the image. In the "Crop" tab set the initial crop - leave it generous, you can always crop more in later steps. Do not be afraid of leaving in sizable chunks of black homes, empty skies or grass. All of that can be filled in later as well. Go back to the "Assistant" tab and click "Create panorama". It is good enough to have JPEG output at 100% quality using exposure corrected low dynamic range output option. Make sure to check the "Keep intermediate images" option. This will not only generate the final, merged panorama, but also keep around the individual images after perspective correction and exposure blending steps. These are critical for fixing blending error in the next step. You might need to go back a forth a few times with a different sets of source images, maybe adding some image between other two, maybe removing another to reach a better starting point. The key part to pay attention - how many ugly stitches are there in the image. Check every face, the blending algorithms do not recognise faces and sometimes try to stitch one face from two or more images creating very weird effects. They can be fixed in the next step, but it is rather hard manual work, so the fewer such faces are in the blended image, the less work you will have. In some years I've managed to find a combination where all faces were good and in other years I had to manually fix 13-15 faces. Do not try to blend the extra pictures (like with you or with sick people) into the main panorama with Hugin - it will get very confused with the parts of the grass that it is able to see where other people were standing. The next is the final processing in GIMP. Think of it like a large and complex project - do as much as possible in separate layers, save often. Fixing wrongly stitched faces and also putting yourself into the photo are very similar activities in the end. Just the scale and the source differ. For yourself you just cut out yourself (upper torso is enough) from the separate photo. For corrupted face, choose one of two intermediate images that the Hugin created where the face is transformed, but not yet merged (with a different version of itself). In either case crop the photo to roughly the interesting size and put roughly in the right spot as a separate layer on top of the group photo background. Reduce the opacity of the small layer to 30-40% and zoom in to 400%. With that it is much simpler to position the layer with pixel precision. Then all you need to do is add a layer mask to this layer and paint it just right. Basically in layer mask black means transparent and white means non-transparent. So you need to just make everything that is you have white mask and everything that is not you have black mask. And smudge the border a bit with finger tool or blur to make the transition smoother. Easy to say. Hard to do. This is what takes most of the actual work hours in post-processing. You might miss someone. I am sure Phill is just thrilled to see me in the very middle of the Debconf25 final picture .... But do try to fix them all. Use large, sweeping geometric figures to cover up black holes, empty grass fields and other sub-optimal corner features. And then use that newly created free space to put in a large version of the logo of this years conference, decently sized motto and slightly smaller invitation to the next years conference. Do not forget to add a copyright and license statement somewhere in the corner in smaller, but still well readable font. I am using a text like: "Photo by: Full Name, Email: fullemail@debian.org, License: GPLv2+ or CCv3-BY" This ensures that this image may be used in any press coverage (with basic attribution) and also can be included in any GPL-licensed software, if that ever comes up. The same statement is also in the metadata of the image file (see Image-Metadata-Edit metadata in GIMP) along with information that states that this is "Debian Developer Conference Group photo, City, Country, Year". Image->Image properties->Comment is another place where GIMP hides this EXIF information. For ease of use, in addition to a full-resolution image it is also useful to make a lower resolution version that would still fit on a 4K screen at full resolution, so about 3840px wide. Some photo hosting services set other limits for image size as well, so it might be needed to scale the image down below 100Mpix to upload it to Google Photos, for example. Publishing So, it is finally 1AM and the group photo is ready! How do you push it out to people? Well, in all possible ways and places. Again - don't be shy, people do really want to see it. Push it to whatever you use for your shared photos. Push it to Debconf shared git (note that this is GIT-LFS repo, make sure you know how to add content to the LFS specifically). All permanent links to that in GroupPhotosAll wiki. And then send those links to IRC, Signal, Telegram groups, debconf-announce mailing list. Publish it in your blog and push that to Debian Planet. Push it in Threads, Bluesky and Mastodon. Send an email separately to Debconf orga team. And one to Debian Publicity Team so they can put it into the Debian Home Page and push via Debian micronews accounts. And that is about it. Now you can go back to enjoying the rest of the conference. Or running around doing other things that you think need to be done. It's up to you. You did it. This moment will remain with people for a very long time. And you helped. Questions? Feedback? Just ask here or here.

Russ Allbery: Review: The Player of Games

Review: The Player of Games, by Iain M. Banks
Series: Culture #2
Publisher: HarperPrism
Copyright: 1989
Printing: February 1987
ISBN: 0-06-105356-2
Format: Trade paperback
Pages: 295
The Player of Games is political space opera and the second book in the shared Culture setting. As with most Culture books, the reading order is not particularly important. It won the 1989 Locus Award for best science fiction novel and sometimes competes with Use of Weapons as the consensus best Culture novel. This review is a re-read and yet another experiment in how to re-review a book. This time, I decided to write a full second review with substantial spoilers so that I can talk in more detail about the book. If you want to avoid spoilers, or just want to see how my thoughts have evolved from my first reading, see my original review from 2005. Gurgeh plays games. He is probably the best strategy game player in the entirety of the galaxy-spanning Culture. He has written papers on game theory, won innumerable major championships, and is a celebrity in the circle of like-minded aficionados. Gurgeh is also bored and in the middle of the Culture equivalent of a mid-life crisis. As the story opens, he's vaguely unsatisfied and adrift, unenthused by his normal activities, and searching vaguely for something that will break through his ennui. He is caught by surprise by the thrill he gets from a moment's misunderstanding in which an opponent suspects him of cheating, which sets him up to be (apparently) clumsily blackmailed by a deeply unpleasant drone named Mawhrin-Skel. SPOILERS BELOW. If you have not read this book, consider stopping here and instead reading my original no spoiler review. The first hundred pages of The Player of Games is a slow, somewhat plodding introduction to Gurgeh, his social circle, and life in (one part of) the Culture. I remember being fascinated by this part the first time I read this book. It was only the second Culture novel I read and the first set in the Culture proper, so the world-building underlying this odd post-scarcity utopia on a vast intelligent habitat with sentient drones, complex privacy rules, endless cocktail parties, and apparently directionless socialites was intriguingly unlike the other science fiction I was reading at the time. This time through, I have to admit I was less impressed. Gurgeh is not very likable, and his desultory mid-life crisis is a little boring. None of his friends have enough depth to appear as more than side notes, in part because Gurgeh doesn't seem to care enough about any of them to make them interesting to the reader. I've since read seven other Culture novels, so Banks's cocktail parties hold less charm and I was impatient for the real action to begin. These chapters are still important, though, because they establish how utterly average Gurgeh is. He has one unique talent, a deep affinity with and obsession with strategy games, and is otherwise a bit of a depressed narcissist with a few casual relationships, a friend that he barely confides in, and a comfortable and familiar life. He is not in any way a hero or a charismatic figure; he just happens to be exceptionally good at one thing, enough to make him famous among people who care about that one thing and probably unknown to anyone else apart from the occasional idly perused news headline. He is the Culture's equivalent of the world chess champion. The Contact division of the Culture has a problem. The Empire of Azad in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud is a nasty, expansionist culture of the sort that Contact would like to deal with before it causes broader problems. The Culture's normal approaches are thwarted by an unusual organizing principle: The empire is built around and takes its name from the game of Azad, a highly complex strategy game developed over thousands of years. Azad is the civil service exams, means of political and religious dispute resolution, selection mechanism for the emperor, and civic religion. Faced with that oddity, Contact turned to Special Circumstances, the Culture's more aggressive and less restrained way of dealing with tricky problems. Special Circumstances, in turn, needs someone who can learn how to play the game of Azad. They want Gurgeh to take a very long trip. For all of Gurgeh's dissatisfaction, he's not impulsive enough to take a five year journey away from his life and everyone he knows just to play a novel game. Conveniently, Mawhrin-Skel's blackmail resolves this reluctance. The game of Azad requires some suspension of disbelief. Banks provides a few glimpses at the mechanics of the game, but those details are insufficient to reconstruct the rules, and some of the claims made about its properties are improbable at best. The best mental model I could build for it is a strategy or simulation game built around units and territory control, with supplemental side games used to build up resources for the main boards, but it's more of a plot device and a set piece than a world-building invention. The significance of Azad the game is its role in society: The Empire of Azad believes they have constructed a game whose complexity so closely models reality that the skills required for success in the game are precisely the skills required for success in the empire. The Empire of Azad is wrong, and this is one of the core themes of The Player of Games. As with many Culture novels, what Special Circumstances tells Gurgeh is, at best, incomplete. Gurgeh is a refutation of the basis of belief in Azad; this is why it is important thematically that he is an average, somewhat unlikable citizen of the Culture whose only special characteristic is skill at learning and playing games. Azad is the myth of meritocracy given physical form as a game. It provides the anchor of the empire for the same reason that societies on Earth place enormous weight on standardized tests, capitalist success, or public debates. All societies face the problem of selecting good leaders and testing opposing beliefs, and all societies attempt to find some form of shortcut, some set of general principles, tests, or objective metrics used to select the best person via a process that people consider plausible and fair. The game of Azad is a paragon of apparently meritocratic process. No matter who you are or what your background is, if you excel at the game that, in theory, objectively tests your skills, you are given a position of power. In practice, the Empire of Azad is not that naive. Manipulation outside of the game happens, only some players have the opportunity and resources to spend years learning the game at a deep level, and only their dominant sex truly stands a chance in games that matter. But neither is Azad's place in society a fiction. There is corruption around the edges, and a lot of people are filtered out before the games begin, but the highest echelons of society are true believers. The game does decide both rank and policy; Banks is arguing against a strong form of apparently working meritocracy. Gurgeh represents a refutation of this meritocracy through the mechanism that breaks every supposed meritocracy: The map is not and cannot be the territory. Any objective evaluation criteria is necessarily separate from what it is trying to measure, and in that separation there is always an opportunity. Gurgeh has none of the background, training, or mindset expected for a player of Azad because he could not possibly care less about any of the things Azad represents to the Empire. What he has instead is a preternatural skill at games and vast experience with the most intricate strategy games the Culture, a much larger society, has been able to devise. He also has both the patience and the resources to devote himself entirely to learning a game for several years, and past experience in doing that with other games. If Azad represents the civil service exams, Gurgeh is the person who has no interest in ruling but adores memorizing facts and taking tests. The theory behind the exams is that the skills to pass the exam only come with the correct mindset to do the job for which the exam is testing. Gurgeh is an existence proof that this is not always the case. Banks also uses Azad to show another aspect of the failure of meritocracy: A society whose rulers are chosen through a competition takes on the shape of that competition. The Empire of Azad is run by the winners of competitive games, so the empire is a winner-take-all system of dominance and status hierarchy. Here, I think Banks lays the point on a little thick; the empire is an irredeemable hellhole of misogyny, sexual abuse, slavery, genocide, and military colonialism to a degree that is a bit hard to justify solely from the game. There is a beautiful turning point about two-thirds of the way through the book where Gurgeh's face is shoved into just how vile Azad society is and reconsiders his approach to the tournament as a result, and I think it may have been a bit stronger if the morality had been a little less blatant and absolute. To the extent that Gurgeh has political beliefs, he represents a Culture flavor of soft liberalism. He has opinions about acceptable and unacceptable ways to treat people, but he grew up in a utopia and his opinions are mostly theoretical. When he sees just how vile people can be outside of that utopia, he is revolted and appalled and redoubles his efforts to fight that society in the only way he knows how, inside of a game. This part of the book follows the standard, if enjoyable, plot of a flawed but fundamentally decent person discovering a true injustice and becoming enraged at it. In a lot of books, that would have been where the plot stops. Banks is doing something more subtle and more interesting, though. Gurgeh wipes the board with his next challenger, but that soft liberalism eventually proves inadequate. To learn the game of Azad and to play in the tournament, Gurgeh has been wrapping himself in Azad culture and its language, and in that frame of mind he is losing the climactic game of the book. It's only when he is pushed to think in Marain, the native language of the Culture, that he understands what is happening in the game and how to defeat Nicosar, the emperor. This, on the surface, is a bit too close to the strong hypothesis of linguistic relativity to be entirely plausible, but such an objection would miss the point that Banks is making here. Marain is a construct, the product of considerable effort within the Culture to match language to the most nuance and complexity that brains can understand, and it is a language, one of the most social and collective artifacts a society can produce. Gurgeh is a remarkable individual with an impressive talent, but individual skill and achievement can only take him so far. The critical final piece is the support of societal infrastructure intentionally built and maintained to help him make better decisions. Once I noticed that point, I saw it everywhere in the book. The empire repeatedly attempts to subvert or distract Gurgeh with drugs, pleasure, politics, or danger, and at each point there is some critical piece of Culture social infrastructure that blunts the attack. Illicit substances and forbidden vices are less tempting to someone for whom the illicit has been demystified by the Culture's gentler approach to rules and boundaries. Embedded biological mechanisms allow him to divert drugs so that they don't affect him. At first, it's easy to read this as an exercise of self-control, but on this re-read I saw how much behind-the-scenes infrastructure supports Gurgeh's ability to ignore temptation. This social support notably does not take the form of some ideological principle or moral framework. Gurgeh is not a monk or an ascetic, as is obvious from the first third of the book, and he has no political ideology to speak of. He is a flawed person with a streak of danger-seeking and self-aggrandizement, which the Culture exploited to get him involved in Azad. But through a lot of hard work, technological and social, the Culture has given him a robust foundation and a set of mental and biological tools that make him remarkably hard to corrupt. The implication is that if Gurgeh has that support, so does every other member of the Culture. It's neither a religion or an ideology; it's well-maintained infrastructure, complex and nuanced and pragmatic, and composed of innumerable small solutions to specific problems. I think the true climax of this book takes place the night before the final day of the game, in the tower meeting between Gurgeh and Nicosar. Gurgeh has realized that he's already won; there's nothing Nicosar can do to salvage the game. He's also seen that the game represents a cultural conflict and conversation between the Culture and Azad and he's overwhelmed by the beauty of that communication and sadness that the game is about to be over. Gurgeh's true passion is the game. It is doubtless easier for him to be magnanimous because he's winning, but he also loves the structure of the game itself and what two players can create in a sort of collaborative competition. Gurgeh tries to express all of this to Nicosar. It is one of the most centrist liberal moments I've ever read in a novel, the pure essence of "reaching across the aisle" or "disagreeing agreeably." Gurgeh has seen something beautiful, something he's created with Nicosar, a moment of true communication, and he wants to share it. Surely Nicosar sees the same thing; surely now that he sees Gurgeh has won, he can appreciate the board structure, savor the moment, understand the transient beauty of a game that is about to end and how perfectly it captures the meeting of their different cultures. That moment does Gurgeh real credit. It's a rare sign of emotional and spiritual depth in a character who often seems superficial. Nicosar meets this outreach with unhinged, furious contempt. He despises everything Gurgeh represents, everything the Culture is, and the next day he tries to kill Gurgeh on the board of the game. It is a devastating critique of liberal tolerance, all the more so because Gurgeh's attitude and outreach is truly admirable. It is perhaps the most sympathetic moment that Gurgeh has in the entire book, the moment where the reader thinks "oh, I get it, I understand what he really cares about." Gurgeh assumes that Nicosar is not his position or culture, that they have made a moment of connection that transcends all the awful things he previously learned about the empire of Azad. That Nicosar, despite being the emperor of the society that is currently doing so many things Gurgeh finds repulsive, cannot be as bad as his society. And Nicosar considers that outreach to be weak, disgusting, and vile, and does everything that he can to destroy it. One of the oddest twists of our current moment is the obsession that some billionaires have with stories that are moral arguments against exactly what those billionaires are currently doing. The most obvious example is Peter Thiel, who is obsessed with The Lord of the Rings and has devoted his life to becoming Saruman, a character who is notably not one of the protagonists. It's as if something in them recognizes the power of the story, but some deep shame or narcissism or simple aversion allows them to completely ignore what the story means. Elon Musk is obsessed with the Culture novels. He names the SpaceX rockets following Culture Ship naming conventions and has claimed that one of his goals is to bring about a Culture-style utopia. And in 1989, years before anyone had ever heard of him, Banks cast him as the villain of The Player of Games. There is so much of Nicosar in Musk: the superficial charm, the limited brilliance (Nicosar is a very good Azad player), the ambition, the pride, and the vicious, spitting contempt for everything the Culture represents at every level deeper than superficial materialism. And Banks is as clear about his opinion of Nicosar as he is about anything in any Culture novel. One of the oldest fictional answers to what a society does with people like Nicosar is the consequences of hubris. By being unable to accept defeat, by holding a vision of the world so tightly, they become brittle and unstable and bring about their own collapse. In a broad sense, that is what happens in The Player of Games with a bit of pushing from Special Circumstances. By the politics of the game, Nicosar had already won; the results of Gurgeh's earlier games had already been faked, the final game had no political consequences, and everyone who knew its true outcome could be disposed of. Gurgeh's win could have been covered up and ignored. But Nicosar could not endure the thought that he would be beaten by someone like Gurgeh, playing Azad the way that Gurgeh was playing it. Gurgeh had to be destroyed on the board of the game; Nicosar's pride did not allow any other outcome, even if it meant Nicosar's death. However, Special Circumstances didn't let hubris be the end of the story. In the climax of the book, the drone protecting Gurgeh also makes sure that Nicosar dies. There is a fig leaf of plausible deniability, but it's so obvious that even the unobservant Gurgeh sees through it immediately. It's hard to escape the feeling that was Banks's answer to what to do with people like Nicosar: They cannot live within society, because they will not live peacefully within society. I enjoyed The Player of Games as much this time through as I did the first time, but for entirely different reasons. In my first read, I focused on the world-building of the Culture, the political machinations, and the concept of games as conversations between the players. This time, I was struck by the political commentary just below the surface. Special Circumstances wanted to resolve the problem of the Empire of Azad without a military conflict and occupation that would be long, brutal, expensive, and demoralizing. They found an answer that relied on the diversity of the Culture. A vast, utopian civilization in which people can pursue whatever interests make them happy produces innumerable microspecialized oddities, people with astonishing talents in some small field that only a tiny fraction of people care about. It produces, in other words, innumerable keys for locks that you may never encounter, but which are invaluable if you happen to stumble across that lock. Gurgeh is not a hero. He is not a paragon of moral virtue, or even a charming charismatic, He is an entirely average member of an extraordinary society, the beneficiary of thousands of years of concerted effort at producing a robust, flexible foundation on which to raise robust, flexible citizens with a shared sense of basic morality. Those people, by themselves, do not solve all of life's problems; the structure of Special Circumstances and its willingness to bend rules in order to maintain them is the tension and deus ex machina in all of the Culture novels. But much of the strength of Special Circumstances is that it has an entire civilization of people like Gurgeh to draw upon when it needs them. It has those people because the Culture comprehensively rejects competitive meritocracy, something that some readers of the Culture novels appear incapable of comprehending. Rating: 9 out of 10

5 July 2026

Dirk Eddelbuettel: Rcpp 1.1.2 on CRAN: Usual Improvements in Semi-Annual Update

rcpp logo Team Rcpp is excited to share that an brandnew new version 1.1.2 of Rcpp is now on CRAN, has also been uploaded to Debian, and has already built for r2u and r-universe; Windows etc builds at CRAN should follow in due course. Rcpp has long established itself as the most popular way of enhancing R with C or C++ code. Right now, 3236 packages on CRAN depend on Rcpp for making analytical code go faster and further. On CRAN, 13.4% of all packages depend (directly) on Rcpp, and 61.4% of all compiled packages do. From the cloud mirror of CRAN (which is but a subset of all CRAN downloads), Rcpp has been downloaded 121.6 million times. The two published papers (also included in the package as preprint vignettes) have, respectively, 2263 (JSS, 2011) and 471 (TAS, 2018) citations, while the the book (Springer useR!, 2013) has another 742. The is the second update in the 1.1.* series which had, among other changes, switched to C++11 as the minimum standard. This release continues as usual with the six-months January-July cycle started with release 1.0.5 in July 2020. Interim snapshots are always available via the r-universe page and repo. We continue to strongly encourage the use of these development released and their testing we tend to run our systems with them too. Having said that, we would like to reiterate that we strongly object to the upstream R release and change management which in this 4.6.* cycle made several abrupt changes forcing packages which consume header files to make very abrupt change. Rcpp, just like numerous other CRAN packages demonstrates that API changes can be undertaken responsibly in a managed manner which allows for transition periods followed by possible warning periods, deprecations periods and finally (but only at long last) errors. What happened here is a speed run to the final stage of forced errors. Uncool and irritating for something as widely used as R. This forced us to make an interim release 1.1.1-1.1 even though we have of course had a policy of always keeping properly tested, installable, and error-free releases candidate version in the main repository branch and hence available via R-universe tested packages for all relevant platforms, and even via binaries for most (including Ubuntu LTS). It would be nice if R Core found a way to take advantage of this. Maybe development cycles, running apart for a year as they do for R, should also include selected packages. Once again I am not attempting to summarize the different changes. The full list follows below and details all these changes, their respective PRs and, if applicable, issue tickets. Big thanks from all of us to all contributors!

Changes in Rcpp release version 1.1.2 (2026-07-01)
  • Changes in Rcpp API:
    • Use of execinfo.h is again conditional to avoid build complexity (Dirk in #1445 addressing #1442)
    • An internal state component for Datetime is now int (Dirk in #1448 and #1449 fixing #1447)
    • Three new (in R 4.6.0) attribute accessors are used conditionally (Dirk in #1450 closing #1432)
    • An UBSAN error in the Sugar-based NA comparison has been corrected (I aki in #1453 fixing #1452)
    • Treatment of Inf outside of integer range in Sugar function has been corrected (I aki in #1458 fixing #1455)
    • Integer overflow protection has been added for sugar functions (I aki in #1457 fixing #1454)
    • The parent environment is now accessed via R_ParentEnv (Dirk in #1460 fixing #1459)
    • Change to returning dataptr again for better handling of empty vectors (I aki in #1462 fixing #1461)
    • Undefined behavior errors in use of ListOf proxies have been addressed (I aki in #1464 fixing #1463)
    • Under newer R version, R_UnboundValue is no longer used (I aki in #1466 fixing #1465)
    • New R API access point R_getRegisteredNamespace() is used with current R versions (Dirk in #1469 fixing #1468)
    • The Nullable::as() exporter now uses an explicit cast to the templated type (Dirk in #1471 fixing #1470)
    • A memory leak in the variadic Rcpp::warning() template has been fixed (Kevin in #1475 fixing #1474)
    • The Nullable::operatorT() has been added as a 'opt-out' (Dirk in #1477 with coordination in #1472)
    • Add templated integer-index overload for operator[] on small systems such as WASM (Jeroen Ooms in #1482)
    • The attribute accessors in AttributeProxyPolicy no longer rely on get__() (Kevin in #1484 fixing #1483)
  • Changes in Rcpp Documentation:
    • Reference in the bibliography used by the package vignettes have been updated.
  • Changes in Rcpp Deployment:
    • Excute permissions are set consistently on scripts with shebangs (Mattias Ellert in #1467)
    • R 4.5.* has been added to the CI matrix (Dirk in #1476)
    • Three nag messages issued when obsolete build flag accessors are used now show Rcpp::: (Dirk in #1480 fixing #1456)
    • Reference GitHub Actions have been updated to their current versions (Dirk in #1481)
  • Non-release Changes:
    • A non-release hotfix 1.1.1-1 used by CRAN accommodates breaking changes to the API in R 4.6.0. It would be nice to have the same level of release management in R itself that CRAN expects from us.

Thanks to my CRANberries, you can also look at a diff to the previous interim release along with pre-releases 1.1.1-1 and 1.1.1-1.1 that were needed because R-devel once again sudden decided to move fast and break things. Not our doing. And there also should not have been a need to two such uploads but it was amateur hour all around. Questions, comments etc should go to the GitHub discussion or issue section, or the Rcpp list. Bugs reports are welcome at the GitHub issue tracker as well. GitHub offers decent search for issue, pull requests and discussions; as many topics have been covered it is worth checking as well.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can sponsor me at GitHub.

3 July 2026

Matthew Garrett: Securing agentic identity

As is the case for many people working in the security industry, the last few months of my life have been focused on dealing with people wanting to use LLMs everywhere. From an enterprise security perspective that s not an inherent problem - what s more of a problem is that people want those agents to have access to resources like their calendar and email and so on, and now we have somewhat non-deterministic agents that seem very enthusiastic to achieve what you asked whether that s a good idea or not, and we re combining this with credentials that give them access to sensitive data, and leaving those credentials on disk where they can be committed into git repos or exfiltrated to some other service to make use of them on the agent s behalf or well just any other number of things, at which point your CEO s email is suddenly readable by everyone and you re having a bad day. As I mentioned in my last post, pretty much every strong mechanism for keeping credentials in place is just not supported in the wider world. We can imagine a universe where agents use hardware (or at least hypervisor) backed certificates to obtain credentials and any that end up leaking are worthless as a result. But, sadly, that s not an option for most people using existing identity providers. The state of the art is that you use the device code flow and a human authenticates and the token ends up back inside the agent environment and then it proceeds to do whatever it wants with it and you just hope that you wake up the next morning without an awful infoleak occurring. (An aside: I do not like the device code flow as used in enterprise environments, and I never will. The identity provider doesn t have a real opportuity to inspect the security posture of the system asking for the token, and as a result some identity providers will restrict tokens that are issued in this way. The common alternative of doing stuff using a more standard flow and having a redirect URI pointing at localhost works fine for local systems and is a pain for remote ones, even if you can commit crimes with SSH forwarding. I m going to suggest something that I think is better, and you are free to disagree) I m not in a position to get every identity provider and service provider to change their security posture, so I m somewhat stuck in terms of the tokens they re willing to issue me - largely either JWTs or opaque access tokens, with no support for any mechanism of binding that token to an instance. The token that s going to have to be provided to the remote service is something I have little influence over. But that doesn t mean I can t influence the token that lands inside the agent s environment. I can issue a placeholder token to the agent, and force it to communicate via a proxy that swaps out the placeholder for the real thing. The worst the agent can do is exfiltrate the placeholder token, and as long as malicious actors don t have access to that proxy, it doesn t matter - nobody else can do anything with the placeholder. This isn t a terribly novel insight, and it seems like almost everybody has reinvented this on their own. But a lot of these implementations involve you somehow obtaining the real token in advance and then pasting that into something that generates a placeholder that you provide to your agent environment somehow, and it s all a bit clunky and awkward, and it also means that you need to deal with something that keeps track of the mapping between placeholders and real tokens and oh no we ve just invented a secret store, and if you want this to work at scale and reliably you re just invented a high availability distributed secret store, and a lot of people who ve read that are now shaking their heads and reaching for gin. Can we simplify this, and improve security at the same time? I think we can! Remember when I said as long as malicious actors don t have access to that proxy, it doesn t matter ? What if they do? What if they compromise one machine inside your environment and are then able to email a bunch of employees and convince their agents to send more tokens back to them and then delete the email before a human reads it? Now you have someone inside the wall with access to those tokens, and presumably with access to the proxy, and now they can be anyone whose agent was gullible enough to think sending them a token was a good idea. This isn t good! So, I thought for a while, and I came up with a new idea. We can have a broker service that obtains credentials for us. We can run that centrally, away from the agents. A client in an agentic environment can request a token, and that can result in a URL being generated and the user being directed to open a URL in a browser and authenticate. When the user authenticates, the authentication flow redirects the confirmation back via the broker, and the broker obtains the real auth token. The obvious thing to do now would be to return the auth token to the client in the agentic environment, but we don t do that. Instead, we mint a new JWT, and add a new claim - one that contains an encrypted copy of the token. In the process we can copy over all the original claims, because those aren t secret - and now even if the client inspects the token to figure out what access it has, it ll get a correct answer. We sign the new token with our own signing key, and pass that back to the client. The client now has a legitimate JWT that is utterly useless, because the signature isn t trusted by anyone other than us. How does it use it? It makes an API request via a proxy, including the new token in the Authorization: header. The proxy verifies the signature on the token, and then decrypts the original token and swaps out the fake token for the real one. The remote API sees what it expects, and everyone is happy. There s never a real token in the agentic environment, but also we don t need to store anyting anywhere. The only state is the encryption keys, and those can be injected into the environment at startup. You need to scale? Just start more of these processes. You need to support multiple availability zones? Just start more of these processes in different places. No persistent data is ever held in the broker or the proxy. You don t need to care about distributed databases or secret stores. This felt wonderfully elegant and I felt smug about coming up with a better idea, and then I went to a bar earlier this week and sat down to read RFC 8705 and the guy next to me saw that over my shoulder and asked what I was reading and I explained why I was interested and we talked about agentic identity and then he mentioned that fly.io had something that sounded very similar and I read that and gosh yes it is very similar, so damn you fly.io for stealing my ideas 3 years before I even had them. Anyway. Now I need to do better. Remember that there s still a risk around anyone who has access to the proxy having access to the encrypted keys? We can remove that risk as well. It s not uncommon for agentic environments to have an identity issued via something like SPIFFE, at which point they have a client certificate. You can probably guess where I m going with this. If we require that an agent present a client cert to the broker when requesting a token, we can embed a representation of that client cert into the token we mint. The proxy can then require mTLS for the client connection, and can verify that the presented certificate matches the one represented in the token. If it does then whoever s using the token has access to the private key associated with the environment it was issued to. If we then ensure that the private keys backing these certificates are either hardware or hypervisor backed, and as such tied to a specific instance, we now have a high degree of confidence that the token can only be used in its intended environment. Even if our identity provider doesn t support RFC 8705, we can. This is fairly straightforward where you re using a platform where your identity provider is also the environment that s consuming your tokens, and more annoying for third parties. The broker potentially needs some amount of third party vendor knowledge to make that work for everyone. This is even more the case where login isn t via your identity provider (thanks, github), but none of this is insurmountable - just annoying. And where vendors issue opaque tokens rather than JWTs, this still isn t a problem; we can just mint a new JWT that includes the opaque token as an encrypted claim, and include the same certificate binding. The opaque token ends up being the thing that s presented to the third party, but only after we ve verified the mTLS binding. In an ideal world none of this would be necessary - someone would spin up a new agentic environment, a user would prove their identity, and a certificate embodying that identity would be issued to the environment with a private key that can t be exfiltrated. That certificate would be sufficient to obtain new certificates associated with the same private key, and we could still bind that into mTLS identity. This would be much simpler, but browsers don t support it, so it s not likely to happen any time soon. Anyway. Even if we can t have the best thing, we can do better than we are at the moment, and also it would be lovely if we could standardise on this rather than have everyone build their own thing. The end.

2 July 2026

Joey Hess: no LLM code in dependencies

I've spent about 100 hours of work over the past month to make sure git-annex can build without dependencies that contain LLM generated code. At least so far. https://git-annex.branchable.com/no_llm_code/ Needing to review a program's whole dependency tree on an ongoing basis is apparently what programming has come to? I've found some real stinkers. Large LLM generated changes being reverted in the next release without any explanation. An incoherent 1489 line commit message with 10,000 lines of changes to a 26,000 LOC code base. A LLM prompt to copy code from another project that seems to have only avoided being copyright infringement due to luck. I now have additional information about the quality of dependencies which will surely influence future decisions. As far as I can see, that's the only positive benefit of this work. I realize that I am probably trying to hold back the tide at this point. That appears to be why Software Freedom Conservancy punted, and I doubt that the FSF will do any better. As these dominos fall, I am reconsidering my participation in these communities. But I continue my work and support my users. It may seem easy to prompt a LLM with
Add fourmolu config and restyled neat format a module
And commit the result and call yourself a 10xer. But please consider the broader impact of your actions. (In the above case, that project lost my further collaboration on it.)

Matthew Garrett: Preventing token theft

When you log into a service you re given an authentication token. Each further request to the site includes that token, allowing the server to figure out who you are and ensuring that you have access to your data. Depending on site policy, this token may either be stored in memory (and so vanish if you restart your browser) or disk. The token is the proof of your identity. As far as the site is concerned, anyone with your token is you. These tokens may be traditional browser cookies, but they may also be stored in either site local storage or (if you re not using a browser) in some other storage location. In recent years we ve seen infostealer malware (like LummaC2) gain the ability to exfiltrate user tokens, allowing attackers to gain access to the user s data without needing to retain access to the user s machine. This attack is viable even if the site has strong MFA requirements, so passkeys don t help. Encrypting the tokens on disk doesn t prevent the malware from scraping them out of the browser s RAM or obtaining whatever key is used to encrypt them. This feels like a pretty hard problem to solve. But that hasn t stopped people from trying! Dirk Balfanz wrote an IETF draft describing a mechanism for using self-signed certificates for TLS authentication. This uses the mutual authentication feature of the TLS protocol that requires both sides prove their identity to each other. In regular TLS, the remote site presents a signed certificate that tells you who it is. When performing mutual authentication, you then present a certificate to the remote site telling it who you are. These client certificates are largely unused outside enterprise environments because they re a huge pain to deploy. It s not so much that this has sharp edges, it s that it s entirely made of sharp edges. Managing certificate deployment to your devices is hard. Browsers get confused if the certificates change under them. You have one certificate and it lives forever, so sites you present it to can track your identity. Users are prompted to choose a certificate to authenticate with, and if they pick the wrong one everything breaks and is hard to recover. I ve deployed this and I did not have a good time. But Balfanz s idea was simple. Rather than require certificates to be deployed, browsers would simply generate a certificate on the fly. The goal wasn t to prove the device or user s identity in any global way - but it would associate a TLS session with a specific certificate. You could then, for example, include a hash of the certificate in the cookie, and if someone tried to use that cookie without presenting that certificate then the cookie could be rejected. If the browser used a hardware-backed private key for the certificate then it would be impossible for an attacker to steal it. Sure, you could still steal cookies, but you wouldn t be able to use them. This was written almost 15 years ago, and seems simple, elegant, and functional. It didn t happen. Part of the reason for that is that, well, it wasn t quite so simple. One problem was privacy related. Cookies are only sent after the TLS session is established, so anyone monitoring the network doesn t know anything about the user identity. A naive implementation of this approach would have meant the client certificate being sent before session establishment, and now user identity can be tracked (no longer an issue if this was implemented on top of TLS 1.3, but this was a log time ago). This was avoided by reordering the client handshake, but that meant having to modify the TLS specification and implementations would have to be updated to support this. Another was that figuring out the granularity of the certificates was difficult. You d want to use different certificates for every site to avoid them effectively becoming tracking cookies, but you need to provide the certificate before cookies are set, and you don t know what origin the site is going to set in its cookies. If you generate a certificate for a.example.com and a different one for b.example.com, and a.example.com sets a cookie for *.example.com and includes the certificate you used for a.example.com, that cookie isn t going to work on b.example.com and things are broken. This meant supporting it wasn t as straightforward as it seemed - you d need to ensure that your cookie scope was compatible with the certificate scope. You could probably make this work well enough by aligning it with the Public Suffix List, but there was still some risk of expectations not being aligned. And, perhaps most importantly, TLS session resumption (replaced by pre-shared keys in TLS 1.3) somewhat defeats the purpose of the exercise - clients store state that allows them to re-establish a TLS connection without performing certificate exchange (this reduces overhead if a connection gets interrupted or you switch to a new network or anything along those lines), and anyone in a position to steal cookies could steal that state as well. The followup attempt was channel IDs. This simplified the implementation somewhat - rather than certificates, a raw public key would be sent, along with proof of possession of the private key in the form of a signature over a portion of the TLS handshake. This was required even in the event of session resumption, which avoided having to worry about theft of session secrets. The timing of the exchange was after the encrypted session had been established, so user identity couldn t be leaked that way either. Cookies could then be bound to this identifier. Unfortunately it didn t really deal with the problem of scoping keys in a way that would match cookie requirements, and the spec suggests that the right way of handling this is to scope keys to TLDs, which would enable user tracking across sites (Chrome s implementation apparently restricted it to eTLD+1, which would match the third party cookie policy and avoid the tracking risk). Chrome added support for this, but it was removed in early 2018. The discussion of some of the pain points in that message is interesting, explicitly calling out problems with connection coalescing across domains and the incompatibility with zero-RTT TLS1.3. The overall consensus at the time seems to be that trying to solve this entirely at the TLS layer has too many rough edges, and a different approach should be taken. And so almost 7 years after the initial draft for origin bound certificates, we come to token binding. This ended up being a rather more complex endeavour, covering 3 different RFCs describing how it impacts TLS, how to incorporate it into HTTP, and how to manage all the various parties involved in the process. The short version is that it s pretty similar to channel ID, except that there s also a documented mechanism for allowing tokens to be bound to one party and consumed by another, avoiding any need for widely scoped keys. Token binding effectively solved all the issues in the original proposal, but at the cost of somewhat more complexity. The RFC was finalised in October 2018. Chrome removed its (incomplete, draft) support for token binding in November 2018. Edge carried support until late 2024. Despite getting all the way through the RFC process, it s functionally dead. The process up until this point had been largely initiated by Google, with Microsoft contributing significantly to the token binding standards. The work had been focused on identifying a generic solution to the problem rather than tying it to any specific authentication flow. The next step was in a different direction - rather than trying to fix this for the entire internet, how about we try to fix it for OAuth? RFC 8705 is titled OAuth 2.0 Mutual-TLS Client Authentication and Certificate-Bound Access Tokens . This is basically the 2011 approach, but (a) with an explicit definition of how the certificate should be incorporated into issued auth cookies, and (b) with a proviso that well uh if you re going to use tokens issued by your IdP to authenticate to someone else then well you re going to need to use the same cert for both. This is probably fine for the company-owned-laptop case where you re actually fine with multiple sites being able to tie identities together (that s kind of the point here!), and also works for I am using an app and not a browser , but doesn t work for more generic scenarios. It also doesn t seem to take the session resumption case into account at all? Support for RFC8705 seems poor, as far as I can tell of the big players only Auth0 implements it. In theory it works fine with self-signed client certs but in reality that s going to be almost as difficult to support across multiple platforms as just issuing proper client certs in the first place, so deployment is going to be kind of a pain. But the good news is it doesn t rely on any TLS extensions or custom browser behaviour, so at the client side it works fine with any browser. Which brings us on to RFC 9449, Demonstrating Proof of Possession . This goes even further than RFC8705 in terms of reducing the burden of deployment - it works fine with existing browsers, and it doesn t even require any certs. The client generates a keypair and provides the pubkey when requesting the cookie. The cookie contains the pubkey. Every request to the service now provides the cookie with the pubkey and also provides a signature over the URI and HTTP method. If the signature matches the pubkey in the token then clearly the signature came from the machine the token was issued to, and everything is good. This does come with some downsides, though. The first is that it uses browser interfaces to generate the keys (typically crypto.subtle.generatekey()) and as far as I can tell there are no browsers that guarantee that that key is going to be generated in hardware even if it s marked non-exportable, so anyone able to steal the cookies can also steal the keys. The second is that the signature only covers the URI and HTTP method, and not the message content or any other headers, so anyone able to exfiltrate a valid signature can replay it against the same URI with different message content. The recommended way to handle this is to reject any signatures that weren t generated within the last few seconds, which is a wonderful additional way to allow clock skew to give you a Bad Day. And the third is that every single request has to be separately signed, which is not intrinsically a problem because computers are fast and have multiple cores, but if you re trying to solve the first problem by sticking the key in a TPM then you re dealing with something that s slow and single threaded and that s maybe acceptable if you re using client certificates (because there s going to be one signature per session and you can use the same session for multiple requests) but probably not if you re dealing with a user opening a browser that restores previous tabs and each of those is a webapp that fires off 100 requests in parallel. In case it wasn t clear, I don t like DPoP. It doesn t feel like it actually solves the underlying problem that we see in the real world (malware running in a context where if it can grab the tokens it can grab the keys), it adds a massive amount of overhead, and it has baked in replay vulnerabilities. I don t know why it exists and I m incredibly suspicious of vendors telling me that it fixes my problems, because if they re telling me that then I m going to end up assuming that they either don t understand my problems or they don t understand their technology, and neither of those is good. Still. Then we get to the thing that prompted me to write this - Chrome s announcement that they had launched device-bound session credentials. This is interesting because it s a Chrome feature that s explicitly intended to counter on-device malware, which was one of the things that was out of scope in 2018 when token binding was being removed. Since this is entire web level it doesn t have to be an RFC, and so is instead defined by W3C. I m going to handwave all the complexity and say that it s basically a way to register a public key when a cookie is issued, and then prove possession of the private key when it s time to renew the cookie. By making the cookies shortlived and having support for rotating them in the background, user impact is basically zero and while it s still possible for an attacker to exfiltrate and use a cookie they ll only be able to do so for a short window before it needs to be refreshed - something the attacker can t do, since they don t have the private key. This avoids the DPoP overhead because you only need to do signing once per cookie per cookie lifetime, and not on every single request. I don t like this due to the window where exfiltrated tokens can be used, but it feels like a strict improvement over the status quo. An extension called device-bound session credentials for enterprise allows pre-enrollment of device keys, so even though the actual runtime DBCE flow doesn t involve certificates, certificates can be used for device registration in enterprise environments and you can make sure that auth cookies only go to trusted devices. Unfortunately this is Chrome-only, and so we re going to need to wait for it to be backported to all the random app frameworks for it to have widespread support on mobile or for almost everyone s desktop app that s actually three websites in an Electron wrapper. Mozilla s current position is that they re not in favour of it, so I guess we ll see where Safari lands in terms of broad uptake. The last thing on my list is another client cert/OAuth binding, this one still in draft state at the time of writing. This one is aimed primarily at the use of agent-driven tooling, where you have something running in the background using a whole bunch of tools that are each acting on your behalf. Authenticating to all of them separately isn t a fun time, but giving broadly scoped access tokens to a non-deterministic agent and trusting that it ll never post them somewhere public also isn t a fun time. The key distinction between it and RFC8705 is that it s aimed at connections rather than sessions, which avoids the worries about session resumption. This is done with TLS Exporters, which in TLS 1.3 should be unique to the connection even over session resumption (TLS 1.2 may reuse some of the same key material for exporters over session resumption, so it s recommended to enforce 1.3 for this). By providing a new signature alongside the cookie on every new connection, the client proves that it still has access to the private key. This is a very new spec and I haven t had much time to work through it yet, but my naive understanding is that unlike RFC8705 this would require some additional client support to be able to regenerate the client signature on every TLS reconnection. This doesn t avoid all the problems that RFC8705 has, including how to scope certificates. For the agentic use case that probably doesn t matter - all these tools are acting on behalf of the same user, it s fine if all the sites involved know they re the same user. But it doesn t solve the general purpose user use case, and right now DBSC seems like the best we have there. But. Part of me still wonders whether Dirk Balfanz s approach was the right one. Yes, there s risk associated with TLS session resumption, but in the worst case you could just switch that off for high risk setups. The cookie scope argument is real, and also in cases where it could violate privacy the site owner could already choose to broaden their cookie scope and violate your privacy, and in cases where it breaks things you could just not make use of it. The other problems are largely fixed by TLS 1.3, and then we re just left with Browsers handle client certificates badly to which my answer is Yes, and we should fix that anyway . Despite having a pretty good answer to this solution over a decade ago, the closest we have to actual deployment is something that offers strictly worse security guarantees. And tokens keep getting stolen, and compromises keep occurring, and for the most part people shrug and get on with things.

30 June 2026

Dirk Eddelbuettel: tl 0.0.2 on CRAN: First Update

The still-very-new logging package tl was just updated for the first time at CRAN. The tl package wraps the (also very new) rspdlite package to offer a lightweight and consistent logging interface from both R and C++ that enjoys being tiny, fast, capable thanks to spdlite. With tl we follow the same idea that our spdl package introduced: a simple consistent interface via just the tl:: prefix and the appropropriate logging level. In other words tl::debug("Alert: foo now ' '", foo) will work from both R and C++ (given a variable foo, and, in the case of C++, an extra semicolon) and log if the current level is debug or higher, and skip logging if not. This release adds a fallback when compilation does not use the (required) C++20 standard, expands the README and adds a initialization helper function reflecting a preferred default logging level from either an environment variable or a global option. We are also working on adding tl to an example package as a simple illustration, more on that hopefully soon. The NEWS entry for this release follows.

Changes in version 0.0.2 (2025-06-30)
  • Added badges to README now that package is on CRAN, add NEWS file
  • Condition the provided header on C++20 use, offer fallback
  • Add an exported initialization function picking up a logging level from either an environment variable or a global option, see '?init'

Courtesy of my CRANberries, there is also a diffstat report for the this release.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can sponsor me at GitHub.

Russell Coker: Links June 2026

This is amusing, a flaw in the crypto-currency Zcash allowed generating Zcash from nothing and there s no way to know if anyone did that [1]. Cory Doctorow wrote an insightful article for Locus Magazine about corporate valuations and why companies claim SciFi technologies [2]. Charles Stross wrote an interesting retcon of James Bond [3]. Trakkr.ai has an intresting post comparing political bias in LLM models, the site has lots of other comparisons of models too [4]. Wouter Verhelst wrote a blog post about his tested usage of LLMs for code generation and the conclusions about what it will do to the FOSS development process, not a lot of new material but he put a lot of good ideas together in one place [5]. Here is the git repository for the programs used for the ssh-audit.com site, really good setup for checking ssh configuration [6]. The isaiprofitable.com site is periodically updated with the profit/loss totals for AI companies, no surprise that every company is losing money apart from NVidia and NVidia are investing in the other companies [7]. Elvira Bary wrote an informative article about Russia s inability to build or design anything good [8]. Looks like we are at risk of another Chernobyl Lev Lafayette wrote an interesting blog post about the Sunway TaihuLight supercomputer with over 10,000,000 cores [9]. Point Free wrote an interesting blog post about running the Gemma 4 LLM which is 25G of data at a usable speed on a Xeon system with DDR3 RAM and no GPU [10].

Russell Coker: Dirty Clone and SE Linux

There is a new Linux kernel exploit out named Dirty Clone [1]. The first thing to do to exploit this is to create a container with a separate network namespace via one of the following commands:
unshare -Urn
bwrap --bind / / --unshare-user --unshare-net --uid 0 --gid 0 /bin/bash
The Jfrog people recommend unshare -Urn but I gave the Bubblewrap command as an option as it should work equally well and in some situations may be permitted when unshare isn t. The next step to exploiting it is to use the ip command to set the links up, below is what happens in a user session on a SE Linux system with user_t as the login domain:
# ip link set lo up
RTNETLINK answers: Operation not permitted
That will give an entry in /var/log/audit/audit.log like the following:
type=AVC msg=audit(1782818856.618:3610): avc:  denied    net_admin   for  pid=1829 comm="ip" capability=12  scontext=user_u:user_r:user_t:s0 tcontext=user_u:user_r:user_t:s0 tclass=cap_userns permissive=0
type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1782818856.618:3610): arch=c000003e syscall=46 success=yes exit=32 a0=3 a1=7ffebe5f9e50 a2=0 a3=0 items=0 ppid=1638 pid=1829 auid=0 uid=0 gid=1000 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=1000 sgid=1000 fsgid=1000 tty=pts0 ses=17 comm="ip" exe="/usr/bin/ip" subj=user_u:user_r:user_t:s0 key=(null)ARCH=x86_64 SYSCALL=sendmsg AUID="root" UID="root" GID="test" EUID="root" SUID="root" FSUID="root" EGID="test" SGID="test" FSGID="test"
type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1782818856.618:3610): proctitle=6970006C696E6B00736574006C6F007570
Unlike previous exploits like Pintheft [2] this doesn t require any really uncommon access to the kernel (unless you consider setting up IPSec to be really uncommon) and is allowed in many container setups. Now on a system with the unconfined module removed (as described in the SE Linux Protection part of my post about Copy Fail [3]) the following domains have such access:
# sesearch -A -c cap_userns -p net_admin
allow container_engine_t container_engine_t:cap_userns   audit_write chown dac_override dac_read_search fowner fsetid ipc_lock ipc_owner kill lease linux_immutable mknod net_admin net_bind_service net_raw setfcap setgid setpcap setuid sys_admin sys_boot sys_chroot sys_nice sys_pacct sys_ptrace sys_rawio sys_resource sys_time sys_tty_config  ;
allow container_init_t container_init_t:cap_userns   chown dac_override dac_read_search fowner kill net_admin net_bind_service net_raw setgid setuid  ;
allow container_kvm_t container_kvm_t:cap_userns   chown dac_override dac_read_search fowner kill net_admin net_bind_service net_raw setgid setuid  ;
allow container_t container_t:cap_userns   chown dac_override dac_read_search fowner kill net_admin net_bind_service net_raw setgid setuid  ;
allow crio_t crio_t:cap_userns   audit_write chown dac_override dac_read_search fowner fsetid ipc_lock ipc_owner kill lease linux_immutable mknod net_admin net_bind_service net_raw setfcap setgid setpcap setuid sys_admin sys_boot sys_chroot sys_nice sys_pacct sys_ptrace sys_rawio sys_resource sys_time sys_tty_config  ;
allow dockerd_t dockerd_t:cap_userns   audit_write chown dac_override dac_read_search fowner fsetid ipc_lock ipc_owner kill lease linux_immutable mknod net_admin net_bind_service net_raw setfcap setgid setpcap setuid sys_admin sys_boot sys_chroot sys_nice sys_pacct sys_ptrace sys_rawio sys_resource sys_time sys_tty_config  ;
allow dockerd_user_t dockerd_user_t:cap_userns   audit_write chown dac_override dac_read_search fowner fsetid ipc_lock ipc_owner kill lease linux_immutable mknod net_admin net_bind_service net_raw setfcap setgid setpcap setuid sys_admin sys_boot sys_chroot sys_nice sys_pacct sys_ptrace sys_rawio sys_resource sys_time sys_tty_config  ;
allow init_t init_t:cap_userns   audit_write chown dac_override dac_read_search fowner fsetid ipc_lock ipc_owner kill lease linux_immutable mknod net_admin net_bind_service net_raw setfcap setgid setpcap setuid sys_admin sys_boot sys_chroot sys_module sys_nice sys_pacct sys_ptrace sys_rawio sys_resource sys_time sys_tty_config  ;
allow iptables_t iptables_t:cap_userns   net_admin net_raw  ;
allow podman_t podman_t:cap_userns   audit_write chown dac_override dac_read_search fowner fsetid ipc_lock ipc_owner kill lease linux_immutable mknod net_admin net_bind_service net_raw setfcap setgid setpcap setuid sys_admin sys_boot sys_chroot sys_nice sys_pacct sys_ptrace sys_rawio sys_resource sys_time sys_tty_config  ;
allow podman_user_t podman_user_t:cap_userns   audit_write chown dac_override dac_read_search fowner fsetid ipc_lock ipc_owner kill lease linux_immutable mknod net_admin net_bind_service net_raw setfcap setgid setpcap setuid sys_admin sys_boot sys_chroot sys_nice sys_pacct sys_ptrace sys_rawio sys_resource sys_time sys_tty_config  ;
allow spc_t spc_t:cap_userns   audit_write chown dac_override dac_read_search fowner fsetid ipc_lock kill mknod net_admin net_bind_service net_raw setgid setpcap setuid sys_admin sys_chroot sys_nice sys_ptrace sys_rawio sys_resource  ;
allow spc_user_t spc_user_t:cap_userns   chown dac_override dac_read_search fowner kill net_admin net_bind_service net_raw setgid setuid  ;
allow staff_bubblewrap_t staff_bubblewrap_t:cap_userns   dac_override net_admin setpcap sys_admin sys_ptrace  ;
allow sysadm_bubblewrap_t sysadm_bubblewrap_t:cap_userns   dac_override net_admin setpcap sys_admin sys_ptrace  ;
allow user_bubblewrap_t user_bubblewrap_t:cap_userns   dac_override net_admin setpcap sys_admin sys_ptrace  ;
Conclusion It seems that SE Linux configured in the strict mode prevents this exploit in the most obvious use case. But with the range of container related domains that are granted such access it seems quite likely that some configurations and use cases will permit it. Overall the protection that the standard policy for SE Linux can offer (in a non-default configuration) against net_admin access isn t bad, but isn t very good either. I think this will be the first of many exploits based on cap_userns access and that we need to do some work in tightening the SE Linux access controls on such things. One possible way of doing this is to have a program run inside a container in a domain that has permissions such as net_admin to setup the container and not allow domain transitions from the regular programs run in the container (the actual work) to the domain used for network setup. The increasing use of containers by applications is only going to make this problem worse. I think that what we need is something like Flatpak for the vast majority of desktop/phone applications with a container setup program that works with apps packaged in the distribution packaging method (not from Flathub). This is something I m going to investigate for future blog posts.

28 June 2026

Russell Coker: Some GPU Stuff

After getting a HP Z4 G4 tower server/workstation to house my Intel Battlemage GPU [1] I ve been playing around with some GPU stuff. For years I ve been just buying GPUs based on the resolution and price and not bothering about anything else due to lack of ability to measure what cards are doing. The nvidia-smi program is really good for NVidia/CUDA setups but I hadn t been aware of anything similar for AMD cards. As I prefer AMD cards for my workstations due to driver issues with NVidia that was a problem for me. I ve recently discovered that the program nvtop (Debian package nvtop) shows the GPU use of multiple GPU types, for me it s worked on AMD and Intel discrete GPUs and shows some information on Intel integrated GPUs, I don t have others convenient for testing at the moment. Currently BOINC has the Einstein@Home [2] project running on the HP Z4 G4 and it s using between 66% and 100% of GPU compute power and 1.6G of GPU RAM. Using 100% GPU compute power allegedly takes 62W of power out of the 190W quoted TDP. I presume that the power use reported by nvtop is very inaccurate. A friend installed a LLM on that system and the libraries used for the LLM were sufficient that BOINC just started using the GPU. On my workstation running an AMD [Radeon RX 460/560D / Pro 450/455/460/555/555X/560/560X] (actually R560) with 4G of GPU RAM I have mpv taking 1G of GPU RAM to play a FullHD video expanded to a full screen window on my 5120*2160 display. I also have about 2G used by the kwin_wayland process (the Wayland server for KDE). That doesn t leave enough GPU RAM to allow Einstein@Home to use the GPU. When playing the FullHD video in question (which is 1.2G for 42 minutes about 500KB/s) at 1.5* speed (a common playback speed I use) that takes about 30% of the compute power on my GPU. I had installed the rocm-opencl-icd package on my workstation (with a 5120*2160 monitor) and restarted boinc-client.service which is all that s needed to allow BOINC to use an AMD GPU. Then the screen started flickering as the Einstein process repeatedly core dumped which I initially assumed to be it s reaction to not having enough GPU RAM available. On every core dump the screen flickered so it went through a process of dozens of screen flickers until it had caused a sufficient number of core dumps and BOINC gave up running that job. Another annoyance is that the boincmgr program (the graphical program for managing BOINC systems) launches two webkit processes that each use about 400M of GPU RAM, so even if other things weren t using all my GPU RAM the boincmgr process would stop the BOINC jobs from using the GPU. I shut down some of the programs that were using GPU RAM until there was 2G free and the BOINC process kept crashing so it seems that there is some other issue. On another system with a 4K monitor there were Chrome and Chromium GPU process taking 1.1G and 500M of GPU RAM respectively and the KWin Wayland process was taking 1G of GPU RAM. So that s well over half the GPU RAM for just browsers and Wayland. With programs like Kitty (terminal emulator) and Nheko (Matrix client) taking over 100M of GPU RAM it seems that 4G is the bare minimum for GPU RAM with modern software and a 4K or similar display. I also noticed the kscreenlocker_greet process taking 440M of GPU RAM. I wonder if a hostile web server could make a web browser take more GPU RAM and starve the screenlocker of GPU RAM, could that allow forcing a screen lock operation to fail? It seems that 4G is the minimum for modern systems, which isn t necessarily a problem as GPUs that are capable of driving 4K displays tend to have no less than 4G. My local computer store has new GPUs with 4G starting at $120 but 12G seems to be the next option up which starts at about $400. Ebay currently has a selection of AMD GPUs with 8G of RAM under $200. I ve had some problems with the GPU in my workstation crashing as described in my previous post where I thought it was driver issues [3]. I now believe that there are hardware issues and will look into buying one of the cards with 8G. Further Investigation I need to determine which of the AMD GPUs that are currently going cheap on ebay are best. While my current PC has support for 150W PCIe power I d rather something less power hungry than that. I have occasional issues of mpv reporting that my system is too slow for a video so slightly more compute power on the GPU would be good, but I think that every available option has significantly more compute power. I need to find out what the relationship is between screen resolution and GPU memory. If I get an 8K display or an array of 4*4K displays (which is quite plausible as 27 4K displays go for $230 each) will I find 16G of GPU RAM as limiting as I find 4G now? The nvtop program tracks PCIe data transfers for AMD GPUs, I haven t yet seen more than 25MB/s and I need to do more tests to see what the maximum is. Running on an Intel Battlemage card nvtop doesn t report PCIe data transfer speed which is a missing feature in either the driver or the program. I need to find out where the problem is and report a bug if someone hasn t already done so. The GPU RAM use of some applications seems excessive. 440M for a lockscreen? 100M+ for a terminal emulator? 320M for Thunderbird?

27 June 2026

Steve McIntyre: It's dead, Jim!

I previously wrote about the upcoming UEFI CA rollover. Well, it's happened now - the old Microsoft UEFI CA from 2011 expired yesterday: Third Party Marketplace Root (used for signing option ROMs and other software)
  Subject: C=US, ST=Washington, L=Redmond, O=Microsoft Corporation, CN=Microsoft Corporation UEFI CA 2011
  Validity
    Not Before: Jun 27 21:22:45 2011 GMT
    Not After : Jun 27 21:32:45 2026 GMT
It's dead - it's not coming back... The world doesn't seem to have ended yesterday, so I guess we did ok? :-) How did we do? After a lot of prodding behind the scenes, Debian and many other distributions managed to get new shim binaries dual-signed with both the old and new CAs. The members of the shim-review team did a sterling job with reviews in the last few weeks. Since I started pushing people in May, we've had 21 reviews accepted successfully - see here for the list. Great stuff! Microsoft have also been working quickly - many of those shim submissions were accepted and signed by Microsoft very quickly too, with a turnaround time of less than 1 day in some cases. Not all of those signed shims have been published and used by the distros involved yet, but expect to see them in the wild in the coming weeks and months. These binaries should be good for people to use for the foreseeable future, until either we need to do another CA rollover or (sadly, more likely) we find an issue in shim that necessitates a new release. What's next? We already have one of our new dual-signed shim binaries in place in Debian, in unstable and testing (Forky) right now. In a couple of weeks from now, we'll be rolling out very similar new dual-signed shim binaries in the next point releases for Debian 12 (bookworm) and Debian 13 (trixie). We'll also be upgrading fwupd in both those point releases, to make DB and KEK updates work better. For more information about these updates, see https://wiki.debian.org/SecureBoot/CAChanges. For your own safety, validate that your systems are updated when possible. If you don't, they may fail to boot in future.

26 June 2026

Russ Allbery: Review: Platform Decay

Review: Platform Decay, by Martha Wells
Series: Murderbot Diaries #8
Publisher: Tor
Copyright: 2026
ISBN: 1-250-82701-9
Format: Kindle
Pages: 245
Platform Decay is the eighth book in the Murderbot science fiction series. You absolutely should not start here, but you also don't need to remember the specifics of the previous books. As the story opens, Murderbot and a friend (the identity of whom is a spoiler for previous books) are infiltrating a Corporation Rim torus, a massive space station that encircles a mined-out planet. (Like most science fiction megastructures, this is more space than the plot really requires.) Murderbot's mission is to exfiltrate some of Dr. Mensah's family members who have become entangled in corporate shenanigans. The corporates are eager to get revenge for the events of System Collapse, not to mention the other times Preservation Station has upended corporate plans. Murderbot's job is to stop them. The group, in addition to one of Dr. Mensah's partners, includes an older woman and a young child. Murderbot is analytical and of course not at all emotional about children, which is reliably a good time. Also, the older woman is gruff, stubborn, and thoroughly enjoyable. There are, of course, complications that lead to picking up more children and going through rather more of the torus than Murderbot wanted to explore. Each section of the torus is run by a different corporation and has a different constructed environment and visual aesthetic, so there are a lot of opportunities for fights, daring escapes, and incidental trouble. Also, well:
So I had installed a mental health module. I know, I was surprised I did it too.
After the events of System Collapse, University Medical decided that Murderbot needed a bit more metal health support.
The only reason I agreed to it was that the mental health module didn't actually try to adjust my processing or core programming or anything; it just monitored my organic neural tissue. When my neural tissue started to generate weird chemicals and whatever, it would ping me to "check in with my emotional state." Seriously, I could have coded that myself. (I told Dr. Bharadwaj that, and she said, "Would you have ever coded that yourself?" which was totally unfair and also correct. I would never have done that.)
Speaking as someone whose neural tissue sometimes generates weird chemicals and whatever, I sympathize. The specific form this module takes is periodic "emotion check" parentheticals throughout the narration, which I found utterly delightful.
I ran that through risk assessment and it produced the equivalent of a shrug. (Emotion check: Shrug sigil right back at you, you piece of shit.)
This is otherwise an extended action movie sort of a book, much like several of the early novellas. There are no major political or interpersonal developments here and the usual cast (apart from Murderbot) is mostly absent. Instead, we get an extended, dangerous journey through a corporation-controlled habitat, mixed with Murderbot trying to interact with humans in a way that minimizes its annoyance while being hopefully reassuring. It's competence porn with awkward but surprisingly heartfelt emotional bonding, not that Murderbot in any way wants to bond or would appreciate that description. I doubt this will be anyone's favorite entry into the series since there are none of the big reveals or major leaps of character development there have been in the past few books. But, like all Murderbot books, the narrative tone is wonderful and all of the small asides and little moments of character interaction are an utter delight. If you've gotten this far in the series, you know what I mean and you'll be as happy to read more of it as I was. There is a part of me that is hoping for some major plot development, and I always want to see more of ART (who has no significant role in this book), but Wells has the narrative style down so perfectly that I would read and enjoy a book about Murderbot doing just about anything. If you're this far in the series, you probably don't need a review, and since this is an action-heavy adventure rather than a character growth novel, I don't have a lot more to add. There's a new short Murderbot novel out and you want to read it. Recommended to everyone who enjoys the series. Rating: 8 out of 10

23 June 2026

Dirk Eddelbuettel: tl-0.0.1 on CRAN: New Package

A new small package of mine just hit CRAN. The tl package wraps the (also very new) rspdlite package (announced last week) to offer a lightweight and consistent logging interface from both R and C++ that is also tiny, fast, capable thanks to rspdlite. The rspdlite announcement is a good place to get a first glimpse at that package; the upstream spdlite repo has all the details (for the C++ side of things). With tl we follow the same idea that our spdl package introduced: a simple consistent interface via just the tl:: prefix and the appropropriate logging level. In other words tl::debug("Alert -- foo is at ' '", foo) will work from both R and C++ (given a variable foo, and in the case of C++ an extra semicolon). Just give it a try, and see how it goes. The package is still young and small. The NEWS entry for this release is also very simple and just announces that we have a release. More details are in the ChangeLog and the GitHub repo.

Changes in version 0.0.1 (2025-06-17)
  • Initial CRAN upload

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can sponsor me at GitHub.

20 June 2026

Gunnar Wolf: systemd for Linux SysAdmins

This post is a review for Computing Reviews for systemd for Linux SysAdmins , a book published in Apress
systemd. Yes, in full lowercase. If there was ever a technology to cause controversy in the Linux world, this is it. Since its inception in 2010, systemd s goals were set quite high: to replace the vital part in every Linux system that takes care of the system boot process. It quickly reached maturity, allowing it to be adopted as the main init system in most major distributions just five years later. Despite describing events that happened over a decade ago, systemd adoption still raises the temperature in any Linux-related discussion. David Both s comprehensive book tackles the what, why, and how issues surrounding systemd. Carefully divided into 16 chapters, going from the basics and some of the technical and political history behind the project to the different subsystems and aspects covered by systemd, its almost 450 pages can scare people away. But the text is written in a very clear, tutorial-like fashion, and while it can be read sequentially, cover-to-cover, readers can also pick a single aspect and jump straight to the relevant chapter. A frequent criticism of the systemd project is that it aims to basically rewrite all of a Linux system, and just looking at this book s index shows there is some truth to it. The first chapter is an introduction to the systemd project and a brief overview of its history (including the controversies around it), and the following four chapters deal with understanding and controlling the system boot process. That leaves ten chapters to cover different aspects or subprojects of systemd, such as time and date issues (synchronization, time specifications, and controlling repetitive tasks), understanding and leveraging the system journal that strongly departs from the old syslog system, network configuration and firewall management, system health and performance debugging all aspects that in the traditional Unix philosophy were managed by independent programs. And I can identify several systemd subprojects not covered by this book! We long-time Unix and Linux administrators took pride in how highly performant and stable systems were supported by the simplicity of our tools; systemd critics point out this massive project has absorbed dozens of individual tools, yielding corporate control over vast swaths of vital system tooling. Truth is, as a sysadmin myself, systemd is today one of my greatest allies. I appreciate how the author evaluates every component independently, including his personal evaluation of each even acknowledging when he prefers working with the traditional programs. If I had to note one criticism: given the many console captures, having a maximum width below 70 characters means several lines are unnaturally cut short (and continued with odd indentations). There is probably no right way to solve this, but it does affect the reading experience.

19 June 2026

Wouter Verhelst: Agentic coding and Free Software

Through work, I have paid license to windsurf (recently renamed to "devin"), an application for LLM-based (aka, "Agentic") development. I hadn't been using it that much, but in an effort to more clearly understand how this whole AI development thing works, I decided to give it a closer look recently. My conclusions: In its current form, this whole LLM wave is problematic for multiple reasons. But ignoring that, and looking at the technology only, I can say that:

Problems Lest someone (incorrectly) assume that I am arguing in favour of the current state of affairs with regards to LLMs, let me state this first. The way LLMs are built today is highly parasitic. Websites are downloaded in whole, at unsustainable rates, regardless of the consent of the people who made the original content. The result is predictable: servers get overloaded, server administrators attempt to implement various mitigations. Some of these mitigations work; some do, for a while; some are entirely useless. In actual fact, the mitigations are an arms race -- if too many people implement the same mitigation, then the people who try to build yet another LLM so they can extract rent will just try to work around the mitigation, eventually they will succeed, and you'll just have to come up with another mitigation. It's a bit like spam; you introduce regex-based spam filters, they introduce spelling mistakes, you introduce bayesian filters, they add a large batch of markov chain-generated semi-nonsense words made invisible by markup, you add filters to block emails with such markup, they move the text into an image. We have working mitigations today, but eventually we'll run out of ideas. LLMs glob up everything they can while ignoring the license of the source material. The people who push those LLMs claim that pushing the source material through the machine learning algorithms makes the output of the algorithm distinct enough from the source material that the license no longer applies; I'm not so sure that this is true. I guess the New York Times v OpenAI lawsuit will teach us some of the answer to that question here, but even so the ethical questions about "is it OK to bring down another server just so we can download the internet for another for-pay LLM" are still open. And regardless of what the law states, my opinion on "you're using my copyleft code to generate code under a different license" is not something you might like if you agree with the rent seekers' opinion on the subject. That all being said and true, the technology works. You can have a "conversation" with an LLM that resembles a human one. If you pass it some data, you can use plain english to ask it questions about that data, which is a lot easier than to ask it about that in a formal way. You can request it to generate some code, and it will generate something that looks like what you need and that will be mostly correct for like 95% of the time. Now, yes, 95% of the time is not 100% of the time, and no, you can't ask it to "write me a piece of software that implements this 300-page requirements document and get back to me when you're done", because it will fail, and you won't know where it has failed, and you'll take it into production and expect everything to be fine because it won't and this one minor logic bug will cause half your servers to spin and consume credits with your infrastructure provider with nothing to show for it. But that doesn't mean you can't use an LLM to build a large piece of software. It just means you have to understand the LLMs limitations and strenghts, and use them correctly. Here's what an LLM is good at:
  • Generating plausible text
  • Interpreting text to figure out what a plausible meaning or summary of that text is
  • Giving vague indications as to what the probable context of a given body of text is.
It turns out that that's enough to use the LLM to build a reliable piece of software, provided you do it right.

Paradigm shift An LLM can generate text by the truckful. The generated text could be code. Given a good enough LLM, the generated text might even run and do something useful. You can try to blindly run the code, and if it doesn't run correctly, you can paste the error message to the LLM, and it can tell you what went wrong and how you could possibly fix it. This creates a feedback loop: you ask it for an amount of code, you run the code, you receive an error, you tell it that the code is problematic and give it the error message, it makes changes to the code, now you have something that at least no longer fails at startup. If you ask it to add tests to make sure that your code acts as per your specification, now you get an error if and when the code doesn't act as per your specification. Or, well, at least not as per the part of the specification that was correctly turned into a unit test by the LLM. LLMs have a context window, so if the error message is pasted in the same conversation as where the code was generated, it is able to reuse the earlier prompts to refine how it should interpret the error message that you received. You can't really paste the source code of an entire application into the prompt of your LLM, that would quickly overrun its context window. But LLMs also allow you to provide some form of background information -- a document, say -- on which you ask it to reason. It will interpret that document, but doing so uses less of the LLMs context window. So providing the LLM with your application's source code as background information can help it understand better how your code interacts. This is especially helpful if you only provide the LLM the background information relevant to the actual question. So now if you are able to:
  • Create background context with your application's source code
  • Have the LLM generate a first draft of your requested change, plus the tests to make sure it works
  • Compile (if applicable) the generated code (and tests) and run said tests
  • Return any error messages to the LLM with a request to correct the error
Then the combination of "getting it 95% right off the bat" and the above feedback loop means you can generate syntactically correct code, that probably does what you need, in minutes. I say "probably" for a reason. There are going to be cases where you specify a request without a number of details (because they are implied), and the LLM will get most of those details right but just not implement the one bit because it's an automaton and it doesn't think. Or you will ask it to make sure that two bits of the application look exactly the same, without specifying that they must act the same, now and in the future, and it will just generate the same block of code twice and then in a future change it will change one but not the other. But if you review the changes, and you have experience as a programmer, you will be able to spot most cases where the LLM got it wrong. And so it's possible, if not necessarily easy at first, to use an LLM to generate mostly correct code. There are certain places where "mostly correct" code is not desireable. But equally, there are also cases where, "mostly correct" is good enough. After all, most of the software you run today -- the bits of it that weren't, yet, generated by an LLM -- is only "mostly correct", too, because to err is human and we all make mistakes. If not, there wouldn't be any CVEs and your software would never do anything wrong. Now, doing the feedback loop described above is certainly something you could do manually. You could open an account on one of the LLM websites, upload the source code of your application, ask it to generate some new feature, download the newly generated feature, run it, and then copy/paste any error messages back into the LLM. But that's a lot of manual work of the type that computers are pretty good at. So that's what the "windsurf" tool helps you with: you run it inside your IDE -- either a VSCode-based tool that you download from their website which comes with their product preinstalled, or a separate JetBrains plugin that you can install. You can then open your entire relevant codebase in a workspace in your IDE. You then ask the LLM, through the IDE, to generate a new feature in your codebase, and to also generate the test while it's at it. It will use a mixture of LLM interpretation and non-LLM functionality to scoop out the relevant bits of your codebase to send to the LLM as background information, will send it your prompt, will download the generated code and patch or create files, will compile (if required) and run the newly generated code and tests, and will refine the generated code if the tests produce any errors. All mostly automatic; by default, running anything requires explicit confirmation. You can turn that off completely (probably not a good idea), or you can give it a whitelist of things that you don't want to confirm (perhaps OK), and the tool also passes standing instructions to the LLM to never generate any command that deletes a file (which, like with any LLM, can be overridden, but it requires you to be very stubborn and to use more credits than you'd probably like). All this put together means you can build something without writing any piece of code, provided you do it right.

A technically positive evolution Don't go and say, "here's a 300-page document, read it and write whatever the document says". It will get it wrong, it will write a massive test suite that it will only run at the end, it will choke itself up trying to interpret the massive amount of failures it encounters, it will fill up its context window and it will start to forget some of the requirements. That won't work. But what you can do -- what I did, in fact -- is this. First, create an empty workspace. Don't put any code in it. Then, tell the LLM to generate a backend framework using technology X and a frontend framework using technology Y that initially only says "hello, world". Also add tests to it, and run the tests. It will do that. You'll not get much, but it will work. Then, ask it to add some UI elements. A login page, perhaps. A navigation bar. Small things. Most of it doesn't have to be functional -- but tests must be there for the bits that are, and have it run the tests and evaluate the results. Rinse, repeat, until you have a working application. Importantly, in between the steps, you should also run the application yourself and see if the change was implemented correctly. Sometimes it won't be. Sometimes there will be a subtle bug -- I at one point had a the application hang after a few minutes. Sometimes you tell it that there's a subtle bug, and it will discover it more quickly than you could, and it will fix it, and in implementing the fix it will uncover another bug, and then you have to fix that one -- the fix it came up with for the hang was to move something to an async process on the server, which caused the application to start spinning while trying to create hundreds of async jobs (this is when I realized that the hang was a deadlock due to some part of the codebase doing something that indirectly triggered itself). Sometimes it will try to fix the bug you tell it about, and you'll see that it's going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what you're seeing. It's important to keep an eye on what it's doing, so you can guide it back on track when that happens -- when I told it about the hang, it started investigating the part of the code which sends out emails, thinking that it could hang while waiting for sendmail to finish, but the hang was happening when the application was idle, not when it was sending out emails, and only when I told it about it happening when it was idle did it find the deadlock. So it's not a fully automatic process, and it needs to be guided by someone who knows what they're doing. But if that is the case, you can come up with something that works. I spent evenings and breaks for about a week, and I managed to create a working application which, had I written it by hand, would have taken me a few months of full-time work to come up with. And I now have a side project, fully complete and working, that I had been thinking about doing for more than a decade, but never got around to actually doing, because of all the work that would be involved and I just didn't see myself having the time for. It's not perfect code. But it's mostly good enough, and it will perform the job it needs to. And it looks far slicker than most of the side projects I've done in the past, because in the past I would prioritize between implementing new features or making something look slick, and I would decide that the new feature was more important because it's only for me and there's only me and nobody cares if it looks good or not and I don't have three weeks to come up with something that looks better. But here, I found myself sometimes spending 10 minutes writing a prompt with instructions on making things look better. Because what's 10 minutes when you just spent an hour writing down and refining specifications for functionality and tests? There are a number of other things in which an LLM can help a programmer. For instance. I received a bug report recently in a project I'm paid to maintain that I couldn't make heads or tails of. I opened the source code in my windsurf IDE, pasted the bug report in the prompt, and then requested the tool to analyze the source code and the associated logs and tell me how the described behavior could be happening. It turned out that I had overlooked something, but with the help of the tool, I found the bug in minutes. I was trying to understand a particular part of a large codebase that I didn't really grasp very well. I loaded the codebase in the tool, and asked it to explain to me how a particular action is performed by the code. I requested specific functions and line numbers. I now have a far better understanding of how the code works, and will be able to write that patch that I've been wanting to write for years -- without using the LLM. I have been struggling for, literally, years with understanding why another tool that I maintain was misbehaving in a particular way but only in Firefox. I opened the codebase in Firefox, explained the buggy behavior in plain English, and asked it to explain how this could be happening. It picked up some obscure corner case behavior of ffmpeg and mp4 containers that I was not aware of and that perfectly explained why things were misbehaving in the way that they were. At the same time, there are limitations. Giving an LLM a codebase that was originally generated by an LLM (either the same one or another one) seems to work well. Giving it a codebase that was written by a human and expecting it to correctly update it seems to be more error-prone. I did one or two of those as a trial, and it is more problematic than anything. An LLM is also not intelligent, notwithstanding the popular term of "Artificial Intelligence". On multiple occasions, I've asked it to write a test case for some code that was not set up to do so; and rather than suggesting a refactor is required, it would instead copy the code that needed to be tested and then test the copy, rather than the original. The tool has made multiple similar errors. I have sometimes people describe agentic coding as "similar to interacting with junior programmers", but that is not the case. A junior programmer will either fill in the gaps in your specifications, or ask for clarification when something seems off. The LLM will not do that; it will do what you ask, exactly that and nothing more. If you missed a corner case in your specification, then all bets are off. I remember learning about programming language generations in college. A first-generation language is "machine code", a second-generation language is "assembler", a third-generation language is any high-level language such as C, Perl, or Pascal. I've forgotten what set a 3rd-generation language apart from a 4th-generation language. But I remember the definition they gave me for a 5th-generation language: "you tell the computer what to do, and it will do it". At the time, I thought it was ridiculous. Nobody could ever write something like that. But it's here. And it's a threat to free software.

A threat to free software? Yes. There is the obvious part where most of the well-known LLMs are non-free software. I mean, there are some "open source" LLM models. The windsurf tool that I used doesn't allow you to use them (directly), but they're there. There are also open source applications that implement what the windsurf editor does. So it's definitely possible to work like this without resorting to non-free software and non-free services, even though the non-free LLMs might be a bit ahead of the curve of the free ones. But that's not what I mean. And there is also the obvious thing which I mentioned earlier in this post, which is that the people who try to build LLMs are doing it in unethical, disgusting ways, causing downtimes and disregarding licenses for whatever they can get their grubby hands on. Ideally we wouldn't be in that situation, and ideally this wouldn't be a problem, but we are where we are. And there's the obvious thing where the OSI sold itself out and declared that a machine learning program can be open source even when the very things it was built from -- the training data -- is not available. That's a major issue that the free software community needs to fight against, but there's not really anything that that is a threat to free software. You just build your own, free software, LLM, and you're done. The actual threat is in funding and developer support. Most large businesses do not care about free-as-in-freedom software. They like the free-as-in-beer part, and they appreciate that the free-as-in-freedom bits can make the software more customizable. They are (mostly) happy to do sponsorships of the free-as-in-freedom projects that they use if that means their free-as-in-beer usage of the software gets improved. But why would you care about all that when you can just generate the code you need, rather than interacting with an open source community that may or may not care about your business's interests?

Where to go from here Although I think the moral and environmental issues with LLMs are real and problematic, given the experiments I did I am not convinced that the concept of interacting with a computer system in natural language and to use it to generate code is necessarily deficient. There are pitfalls, but they can be managed. It is possible to use such a system to create throwaway, proof-of-concept type "good enough" code bases. It can be used to interpret code bases and to understand bug reports. I believe that the major issue with LLMs has to do with that saying about hammers and nails:
If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.
LLMs are an outgrowth of machine learning, pushed by large corporations. These large corporations have a lot of money. If all you have is money, then every problem can be fixed by throwing more money at it. The initial language models were promising but not (yet) good enough, and it seemed that one way in which they could be improved was to increase the scale of the statistics: throw more hardware (and thus money) at it, and rather than improving the efficiency of the models, just scale up. Scaling up is something that megacorporations are very good at. It's only a money problem, after all. Does that mean that "scaling up" is the only way to improve the models, though? I'm not convinced. Some hardware, such as most modern Apple and Samsung devices, ship with accelerator hardware for machine learning algorithms. There are some models that are small enough to be able to run on these devices. I don't see why it should not be possible to create a small(er) language model that can do some useful part of the above-described use cases; if not locally, then at least on a server that one can run on-prem rather than requiring that you pay rent to one of the LLM companies. The Software Freedom Conservancy has published an aspirational statement on machine learning-assisted programming that, I think, gets a lot right. It's not quite a definition, but it's something to keep in mind. Perhaps that's the way forward? More questions than answers at this point, anyway.

Freexian Collaborators: Monthly report about Debian Long Term Support, May 2026 (by Santiago Ruano Rinc n)

The Debian LTS Team, funded by Freexian s Debian LTS offering, is pleased to report its activities for May.

Activity summary During the month of May, 21 contributors have been paid to work on Debian LTS (links to individual contributor reports are located below). The team released 56 DLAs fixing 877 CVEs. May was a much busier month than usual, especially due to the disclosed vulnerabilities on linux regarding Local Privilege Escalation (LPE), that included public proof-of-concept (PoC) exploits. These reports of course impacted Debian as a whole, and the situation warrants a special mention to the Kernel Team, especially Ben Hutching and Salvatore Bonaccorso, who faced the pace and released linux packages on a weekly basis. On the LTS side, the Front Desk team also triaged a significant flow of high severity CVEs. It is also important to note that Debian 12 ( bookworm ) will be handed over to the LTS Team on June 11th. If you benefit from Debian, especially during the full 5-year lifecycle, please consider subscribing as a sponsor of Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/lts/debian/. Moreover, Debian 11 ( bullseye ) will reach the end of the Debian LTS period on August 31st. After that, Freexian will continue the security support under the Extended LTS offer. The team published several notable updates:
  • As mentioned above, several exploitable LPE vulnerabilities in linux were published during May. Ben released the following DLAs for the Debian LTS versions:
  • exim update (DLA-4580-1), prepared by Thorsten, to address a vulnerability that may result in remote code execution.
  • gnutls28 update (DLA-4595-1) by Guilhem Moulin, fixes several vulnerabilities that may result in execution of arbitrary code, information leak, authentication bypass, among other impacts.
  • krb5 updates released as DLA-4603-1, fixing two vulnerabilities that may yield to a denial of service. Updated prepared by Emmanuel Arias
  • lemonldap-ng (DLA-4602-1), released by Abhijith PA, fixing multiple vulnerabilities
  • Two imagemagick updates (DLA-4559-1 and DLA-4609-1), prepared by Bastien Roucari s, fixing several vulnerabilities
  • openjdk-11 and openjdk-17 updates (DLA-4566-1 and DLA-4565-1), both prepared by Emilio, to fix seven vulnerabilities.
  • php7.4 update (DLA-4586-1) to fix six vulnerabilities that could result in remote code execution, information disclosure or denial of service. Update prepared by Guilhem Moulin.
  • python3.9 update (DLA-4583-1), prepared by Arnaud Rebillout, addressing multiple vulnerabilities.
Contributions from outside the LTS Team: We are greatly thankful for the contributions from people outside the LTS Team:
  • Colin Watson prepared an OpenSSH update, that was released by Santiago as DLA-4584-1.
  • Thomas Goirand handled a keystone update, whose advisory was done by Santiago and released as DLA-4611-1.
  • Christopher Obbard kindly prepared a sentry-python update, released as DLA-4612-1.
  • Christoph Goehre made two thunderbird updates (DLA-4562-1 and DLA-4582-1). As is customary, Emilio released the advisories.
The LTS Team has also contributed with updates to the latest Debian releases: Moreover, thanks to our partnership with Catalyst, it has been possible to extend the support for Samba 4.17, the version shipped with Debian 12. In May, several vulnerabilities were disclosed, and their patches were prepared by Catalyst. For Debian 12, the update was prepared by the Samba maintainer and released as DSA-6297-1.

Individual Debian LTS contributor reports

Thanks to our sponsors Sponsors that joined recently are in bold.

Next.