Config Files That Run Code: Supply Chain Security Blindspot
Posted by signa11 1 day ago
Comments
Comment by ryanshrott 15 hours ago
Comment by Panzerschrek 23 hours ago
Comment by Ferret7446 21 hours ago
There are software/devs that make sane security choices, and then there's the ones that don't (usually the younger/more modern ones)
Comment by embedding-shape 1 day ago
Comment by lstodd 1 day ago
Comment by IcyWindows 1 day ago
Comment by giancarlostoro 1 day ago
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-search-a...
The final straw for me was when I saw that Microsoft Defender by default could send files to their servers for inspection, and I couldn't see what was sent previously, nor was this an opt-in option, it was on by default. I have anything from PII to highly proprietary things on my computer, I don't need them being "flagged" by Microsoft for arbitrary reasons. I have been on Linux full time for the last few years since.
Comment by hadlock 1 day ago
Comment by Tangurena2 1 day ago
Comment by ashishb 1 day ago
I smelled something fishy and never ran it though.
Comment by ktm5j 1 day ago
Comment by acdha 1 day ago
Comment by MeetingsBrowser 1 day ago
Comment by stronglikedan 1 day ago
Comment by vikramkr 1 day ago
Comment by bpt3 1 day ago
No one cares about security. People used to care for a fairly short period of time after something bad happened to them, but even that seems to have gone by the wayside as breaches, leaks, and use of exploited code has become normalized.
Comment by mikepurvis 1 day ago
The rise of editors that will own your system just by browsing to the wrong folder without opening or running anything is relatively speaking newer, but I think most people in HN audience should be able to intuit some of the risks, especially when untrusted PRs and semi-trusted LLM bots are in the mix with your "trusted" codebase.
Comment by pixl97 1 day ago
Only a small subset of the worlds programmers are on HN, and one might assume they are more security aware then those that are not. Which means there's a shit load of people opening stuff they shouldn't be.
Comment by bpt3 1 day ago
This is kind of my point. People are doing things that are objectively stupid from a security perspective on a daily basis, and actively rejecting the idea of protecting themselves because they keep doing it after either identifying some risk themselves, being told about it directly, or being told about how others were negatively impacted by the same actions.
And in my opinion, the benefits they get from these changes to their dev environment are negligible, and that's not even getting into how every file is potentially executable code to an LLM.
Comment by zer00eyz 1 day ago
Not true, the C suite cares a LOT about security.
You need that human shield, that person to blame when it does go wrong...
Comment by tuwtuwtuwtuw 1 day ago
Comment by hulitu 1 day ago
I think they, and the CIA, call it a feature. Just like messenger apps which try to "execute" every "image file" or link thrown at them.
Comment by continueops_com 1 day ago
Comment by sieabahlpark 1 day ago