Hacker News Reader

Comment by clwg | Hacker News Reader

Not just QA; security assurance, code reviews, static and dynamic testing, threat surface analysis, unit testing, and pentesting either didn’t exist or weren’t sufficiently applied.

I have to imagine that this bug has existed for quite some time and I’d be curious to know what other input validation errors they have, considering the amount of untrusted input they evaluate at ring 0 originating from userland.

View on HN

Again, there are safe ways of doing this. For example, Wuffs exists: https://github.com/google/wuffs

At the very least, big money security software companies should be parsing untrusted content with some kind of rigorouly safe approach, not just squirting it through a big pile of C/C++.

And don't get me started on the whole concept of undefined behavior in those languages. To quote I. I. Rabi, "Who ordered that?"

>At the very least, big money security software companies should be parsing untrusted content with some kind of rigorouly safe approach

the malformed files were updates from crowdstrike itself. It's not exactly "untrusted content".

It is untrusted data in the sense of files being read from disk that are not part of the signed kernel driver code.

The files in question reside within C:\windows, which requires admin privileges to write to. If untrusted data can end up there, you're already on the other side of the airtight hatchway[1].

[1] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20220907-00/?p=10...

Fuzzing...

I'd love to hear from an engineer on the project but unfortunately we're likely not to.

Highly unlikely anyone except governments or top-paying corporations with custom-negotiated T&Cs will see a detailed post-portem, unless someone blows the whistle. Would love to read an AmA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com