Seems a bit like the situation with Wordpress, the core is pretty solid security-wise but the third-party ecosystem isn't as well-tested or maintained.
And if they want to support people then pay them, Caddy is owned by a large company so they should be able to pay maintainers for their most security-critical plugins. I really don't want to be too harsh, it's a great piece of software, but I'm tired of this marketing tendency to wildly exaggerate capabilities and properties of software systems.
> Caddy is owned by a large company so they should be able to pay maintainers for their most security-critical plugins.
this is the most critical part to me, onboarding your highest used plugins is probably a good idea.
In fact, while I'm a top contributor, I don't receive anything for my work. I do it as a volunteer. Matt has told me repeatedly he'd like to pay me for my efforts, but I have a full time job already and Caddy is a hobby for me, so I'm not looking to get paid.
But either way, we wouldn't onboard a plugin with such a wide scope as caddy-security. It would take way too much effort for us, and it would bloat the standard distribution with features only a small part of the userbase would need. We're already spread thin as it is, our time is best spent improving and maintaining the existing core feature set.
And this plugin isn’t built or maintained by our core team. It’s third party.
I stand by our marketing.
I went and sponsored a small monthly pledge as a happy Caddy user, and submitted it to my work's sponsorship team.
It is focused on backwards compatibility and simply does not prioritize security very much. All claims about “okay security in the core” come from having even worse plugins, it making a good story and simply an enormous user base.