cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/17683690
GitHub, the de-facto platform for open-source software development, provides a set of social-media-like features to signal high-quality repositories. Among them, the star count is the most widely used popularity signal, but it is also at risk of being artificially inflated (i.e., faked), decreasing its value as a decision-making signal and posing a security risk to all GitHub users.
A recent paper by Cornell University published on Arxiv, the researchers present a systematic, global, and longitudinal measurement study of fake stars in GitHub: StarScout, a scalable tool able to detect anomalous starring behaviors (i.e., low activity and lockstep) across the entire GitHub metadata.
Analyzing the data collected using StarScout, they find that:
(1) fake-star-related activities have rapidly surged since 2024
(2) the user profile characteristics of fake stargazers are not distinct from average GitHub users, but many of them have highly abnormal activity patterns
(3) the majority of fake stars are used to promote short-lived malware repositories masquerading as pirating software, game cheats, or cryptocurrency bots
(4) some repositories may have acquired fake stars for growth hacking, but fake stars only have a promotion effect in the short term (i.e., less than two months) and become a burden in the long term.
The study has implications for platform moderators, open-source practitioners, and supply chain security researchers.
No big surprise here, stars/star reviews are in general completely worthless. I don’t really even bother with them anymore.
It took a bit but legitimate repo owners are starting to come over to codeberg and other alternative git sites. If we can get federation working it will be even better.
My GitHub account is getting swamped with AI created accounts following my account because it makes them look legit. It’s getting pretty bad…
IMHO, GitHub has been steadily getting worse ever since Microsoft bought it.
The first things I noticed were minor UI annoyances. Later on, it started hijacking some of my browser’s keyboard shortcuts and controls. Then there was the continual nagging: to give them more email addresses, to re-re-re-re-download my TOTP recovery keys, etc. Unilaterally deciding to use all of our creative works to train their LLM hasn’t made them many friends. And now there’s this issue, which might not be Microsoft’s fault (at least not entirely), but it is a consequence of the global software community using a single, centralised service for so much of what we do.
I put my most recently published project on Codeberg. If it goes well, I’ll probably move my GitHub projects there. The UI is familiar and comfortable, and I think their work toward federated software forges is important.
It’s worth noting that Codeberg requires most projects to be open-source. I think they make exceptions in some cases.
Does codeberg have anything that will prevent an influx of bots or AI accounts that have plagued GitHub?
I ask because as the user base for codeberg grows the bots, AI and nefarious actors will follow.
I like the idea of a federated source code hosting platform especially since it removes lock-in to a single corporation and a defacto monopoly.
That in itself is a good enough reason to migrate, but regarding this particular issue, bots/AI and artificial project promotion for malicious intent, feels like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Once these things are federated, it seems reasonable to expect that each instance would be able to choose what stars/followers/etc it accepts or displays, roughly similar to what Lemmy does with allowed/blocked instances. That might put a dent in the problem. At least, there would no longer be a single, easy, high-value target for this sort of thing.
No idea. I would assume it’s the same as all other activityhub providers.
