HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
webmproject
libwebp
C2023–2023
webmproject / libwebp

libwebp

Mirror only. Please do not send pull requests. See https://chromium.googlesource.com/webm/libwebp/+/HEAD/CONTRIBUTING.md.

9Distinct people
9Mentions
1Explicit recommenders
2.4KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Mirror only. Please do not send pull requests. See https://chromium.googlesource.com/webm/libwebp/+/HEAD/CONTRIBUTING.md.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

Millions of people in the world are affected by this library, 10 times over for every devices and apps they use. I'm sorry but I call for libraries used by millions around the…

keyle used a recommendation phrase. One indexed comment matches. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 2:17:07 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by day9 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2023-09-12 09:47:34 UTC to 2023-09-26 13:32:58 UTC.

0123452023-09-12 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-13 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 commentsSep 122023-09-13 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-14 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-09-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-15 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-09-15 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-16 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-09-16 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-17 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-09-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-18 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-09-18 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-19 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-09-19 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-20 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsSep 192023-09-20 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-09-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-22 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-09-22 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-23 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2023-09-23 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-24 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-09-24 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-25 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-09-25 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-26 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-09-26 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-27 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsSep 26

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Sep 122023-09-12 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-13 00:00:00 UTC505
Sep 132023-09-13 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-14 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 142023-09-14 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-15 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 152023-09-15 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-16 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 162023-09-16 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-17 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 172023-09-17 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-18 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 182023-09-18 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-19 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 192023-09-19 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-20 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 202023-09-20 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-21 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 212023-09-21 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-22 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 222023-09-22 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-23 00:00:00 UTC303
Sep 232023-09-23 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-24 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 242023-09-24 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-25 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 252023-09-25 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-26 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 262023-09-26 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-27 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

1 sources
The thing that concerns me most is looking at the fix it is very difficult to see why this fix is correct. It also appears as there is lots of code without explicit bounds checks. It makes me worried because while the logic may be safe this makes the logic very complex. I wonder what the cost would be to add an explicit, local bounds check at every array access. This would serve as a backup that is much easier to verify. I suspect the cost would be relatively small. Small enough that I personally would be happy to pay it. https://github.com/webmproject/libwebp/commit/902bc919033134... This is also a great reminder that fuzzing isn't a solution to memory unsafe languages and libraries. If anything the massive amount of bugs found via fuzzing should scare us as it is likely only scratching the surface of the vulnerabilities that still lie i
Read the rest
n the code, a couple too many branches away from being likely to be found by fuzzing.
In Google assigns a CVE for libwebp and gives it a 10.0 score

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.