Recently I got an email that some severe security defects were found in a project, so I felt compelled to check. A bot called “advanced security AI” by Github raised two concerns in total, both indeed marked as “high severity”:
— A minimal 30 LoC devserver function would serve a file from outside the current directory on developer’s machine, if said developer entered a crafty path in the browser. It suggested a fix that would almost double the linecount.
— A regex does not handle backslashes when parsing window.location.hostname (note: not pathname), in a function used to detect whether a link is internal (for statically generated site client-side routing purposes). The suggested fix added another regular expression in the mix and generally made that line, already suffering from poor legibility due to involving regular expressions in the first place, significantly more obscure to the human eye.
Here’s the fun thing: if I were concerned about my career and job security, I know I would implement every damn fix the bot suggested and would rate it as helpful. Even those that I suspect would hurt the project by making it less legible and more difficult to secure (and by developers spending time on things of secondary importance) while not addressing any actual attack vectors or those that are just wrong.
Security is no laughing matter, and who would want to risk looking careless about it in this age? Why would my manager believe that I, an ordinary engineer, know (or can learn) more about security than Github’s, Microsoft’s most sophisticated intelligence (for which the company pays, presumably, some good money)? Would I even believe that myself?
If all I wanted was to keep my job another year by showing increased output thanks to all the ML products purchased by the company, would I object to free code (especially if it is buggy)?