Comment by krick | Hacker News Reader

Comment by krick | Hacker News Reader

This is bullshit. I mean, ok, you are concerned about somebody using git-enabled PS1. Guess what, not everyone is using git-enabled PS1. Unbelievable, right? I would even mock the fact that you are trying to protect users from the behavior they pretty much explicitly allowed, but this is pointless. Truth is, developers are doing something that can fuck up their system daily. Let's forget about wget | bash and copying completely untrusted git repositories (and it's pretty much guaranteed that everybody using git-enabled PS1 won't shy away from that). Just using composer or npm is enough to compromise your system. "Fixing" this is like introducing DRM: you cannot do arbitrary unsafe stuff without doing arbitrary unsafe stuff. And there simply are people out there, who want to do arbitrary unsafe stuff.

But ok, let's not take it as an excuse. How about fixing git, then? I mean, actually fixing: making it possible to disable hooks & core.fsmonitor & whatever else they fucked up? No, right, let's just disable git instead.

And if I'm reading this correctly, I'm not even allowed to say "I don't care" — I must explicitly mark every shared directory as trusted (I mean, safe.directory = '/' won't work unless / is actually a git directory, right?).

I guess I just shouldn't update git until this "fix" is fixed. Or until git is forked.

>Guess what, not everyone is using git-enabled PS1

not everyone is running on a multi-user system either (realistically speaking, most personal computers are single user). That doesn't mean microsoft/apple/linux doesn't care about escalation of privilege exploits.

>Truth is, developers are doing something that can fuck up their system daily. Let's forget about wget | bash and copying completely untrusted git repositories (and it's pretty much guaranteed that everybody using git-enabled PS1 won't shy away from that).

So because devs are doing dumb shit on a daily basis, they shouldn't fix security vulnerabilities? What if I'm not doing dumb shit? should I get hacked because I entered a malicious directory on a multi-user system?

>I mean, actually fixing: making it possible to disable hooks & core.fsmonitor & whatever else they fucked up? No, right, let's just disable git instead.

but then what if you need hooks? then you'll have to somehow manually enable it on a repo-by-repo basis, which also doesn't seem very convenient. At least with the ownership check it's transparent to most users. For people that use shared directories and/or network drive mounts, they can always whitelist the path.

That doesn't mean microsoft/apple/linux doesn't care about escalation of privilege exploits.

Because they're authoritarian control-freaks who want to take away even the concept of ownership eventually, having it all to themselves. They want to be able to force users into doing whatever they want.

If you're wondering "Linux too?" --- I'm not saying Linus himself is an enemy, nor a lot of the neutral developers who have contributed good things to it, but all the corporate interests (like Android --- via Google) have shoved plenty of "trusted" computing shit into the kernel, and "secure" boot for Linux distros is still ultimately controlled by a Microsoft key.

We are starting to wake up to this "security" bullshit.

> but then what if you need hooks? then you'll have to somehow manually enable it on a repo-by-repo basis, which also doesn't seem very convenient.

What's wrong with that? Git hooks are inherently dangerous (i.e. running arbitrary code) and should be something you opt into manually.

I am tempted to say that no matter who you are, I am pretty much positive you are doing dumb shit daily, and pretending you are not is laughable, but that would be off the point: I pre-emptively answered your 2 first points in the original comment, so I'm ignoring them. The only part that requires an answer is this:

> but then what if you need hooks?

Now that's just genius! So, making it possible to disable the functionality that specifically allows for the execution of arbitrary code (which is questionable on its own to say the least — it's pretty much the definition of aforementioned "dumb stuff") is bad, because having to enable it back is "inconvenient", and disabling the whole multi-purpose tool that git is (which has hundreds of user scenarios that don't require allowing to execute arbitrary commands) is good? This is a rhetorical question of course, just think about what you are saying. Worth nothing that making enabling it back inconvenient is a strawman of yours: this is precisely my point that even what they did would be ok, if I was allowed to simply disable their "fix". And it's exactly the problem, that there's no convenient option to do so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com